User talk:Dominic/Archive15

Please review

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)

Eh, it seems to have been taken care of. Thatcher131 02:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like this should be noted on WP:BU then. Dmcdevit·t 05:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Thatcher131 15:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"edit wars"

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)

Did you really look into those edits and put them into the proper context? Obviously not, so I will need to spend some time now on explaining the examples you gave as they do not support your proposal. It's unfortunate that now I need to spend time defending myself instead of other more productive things I can be doing here. Sigh. // Laughing Man 05:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, those are certainly edit warring (you shouldn't war against or for consensus, use dispuute resolution) but of course, they aren't the best examples because you only disputed that you had edit warred regarding Kosovo, not that you had edit warred in general. Your tone is off-putting, by the way. Believe me, I'll change my mind if I'm mistaken. Dmcdevit·t 05:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:OSTRICH

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)

Prod

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)

Template Removal

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 understand whay purpose you feel that template is serving, other than as a social stigma for past wrongs. The sockpuppet is long since blocked, and there is no danger from it. CltFn is not blocked. Do you intend him to carry that template with him forever? Let's move on. Dmcdevit·t 07:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

So User:Shiva's Trident doesn't need it either? User:Blnguyen said he did. I just want to know what's policy on this - if there isn't any policy, maybe the admins should make one. He was also blocked for his continual removal of the notice, which indicates that the blocking admin felt it was necessary. Considering it was his second sockpuppet, I feel it's important. BhaiSaab ^talk 09:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadly BhaiSaab cannot move on. Look at the discussion over an account we had over an account I made at the start of my wikiediting which wasnt even a sock by any means [4]. He seems to wish to tag user pages with "sock-graffiti".Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't answered why it is important. Is there an actual reason for it, other than that it was ever put there? Dmcdevit·t 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because he may do it again. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is the tag important? It isn't going to prevent anyone from using sockpuppets again. Dmcdevit·t 19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

But it does indicate his past actions to anyone who may suspect him of using sockpuppets in the future. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Be realistic. So he was blocked for using a sockpuppet in the past, and now wants to start fresh. You want him to have a sockpuppet tag forever? Well, you were blocked for edit warring once, too. Should I create a template to put on your user page forever so everyone knows you have a history of it? There is no reason for it, and it's in the block log in any case. You are really just making yourself look vindictive. Dmcdevit·t 19:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not one, but two sockpuppets. If the template is not to be used, why does it exist in the first place? BhaiSaab ^talk 19:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The way you want it to be used is silly, that doesn't mean it is not to be used. Dmcdevit·t 19:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Take it up with User:Blnguyen and please form a policy regarding this. User:Anwar saadat and User:Shiva's Trident still have to carry the templates because of what that admin said. You can't apply two different standards to users who have committed the same offenses. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:00, 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)

ER

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)

Srebrenica article again

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)

SV RfAR

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)

Jesus

Thanks for one of the best edit summaries I've ever seen.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

HeartattaCk

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)

The publication apparently stopped on June 30, but the publisher is still alive, and the article was six sentences, one of which was a pointer to its successor zine. Out-of-print seems irrelevant for this product. In any case, if you saw my deletion summary, you'd note that there was more reason than G11. The article made no assertion to notability. Dmcdevit·t 19:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been brought to DRV in any case. I was going to try and work it out here, but it's rather moot at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC):::Oh well. I think a reasonable personal discussion would have been productive too, as my actions are always open to review and criticism. I've stated the same reasoning at the process page, then. Dmcdevit·t 20:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What's not moot, as you knew, DMC, when you erased my comments without responding to them, is that you really need to refrain from messing up articles you clearly don't know anything about. Civil or not, it's the truth. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 20:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I thought something is supposed to happen in arbitration when you get four arbitrators. Nothing seems to be happening on Ian Tresmans' request.Elerner 00:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

how-tos

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)

From: Useless New User ;)

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)

Another Snle sockpuppet

Hey, could you please do a check on Manzhouri (talk · contribs)? Should go to WP:RFCU instead? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 17:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Communism vandal

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HRosson&oldid=81000768 --  Netsnipe  ►  16:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Email

Hi,

You should have an email from me regarding a third-party oversight request. Thanks, Xoloz 16:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm out of town at the moment, so I won't be able to get to my email today, though probably tomorrow. I hope it's nothing urgent. Dmcdevit·t 06:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Roots of the problem

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)

I apologise for dropping in uninvited. I do not have much idea about what happens at IRCs. However, I do feel that talks at IRCs not connected with promoting and value adding the Project is perhaps a waste of time and resources. And, I also take this opportunity to say hello to Dmcdevit. --Bhadani 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comment to SOI's RFA

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, CharonX/talk 18:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

e-mail

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)

Thanks. I'm out of town at the moment, so I won't be able to get to my email today, though probably tomorrow. I hope it's nothing urgent. Dmcdevit·t 06:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No its not urgent at all. Rama's arrow 17:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Case renamed

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)

Glossary policy

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)

My feeling is that there has never been a strong, or even very interested, community opinion on glossaries. While they basically fit into WP:WINAD, there is no explicit statement abou glossaries, and it might be controversial to add one, though I think eventually we'll have to clarify the matter. I personally dislike them in general at Wikipedia, because I feel they are more appropriate at Wiktionary. (In fact, I've been trying to help out with Wiktionary's coverage in this area.) However, some are well-developed and wikified, so they, while they have been deleted before, they are more complex AfD cases. If you are interested in glossaries, I would suggest you direct your efforts towards producing the same material as a wikt:Wiktionary:Appendix.

The ideal solution for a glossary like the architecture one is now is, in my opinion, to transwiki it to wikt:Appendix:Architecture, to add {{wiktionarypar}} to the top of Architecture itself, and then to nominate the article for deletion from Wikipedia itself. Wiktionary actually deals with definitions like these much better, and the kind of organic growth we want in these articles is the kind Wiktionarians are more likely to give it (part of speech, pronunciation, etymology, synonyms, etc.) than Wikipedians, and something they can do better, since their internal links will lead to explanatory definitions, where we have redlinks or redirects for words-without-encyclopedic-concepts.

As to naming: glossary signifies a list of specialized terms with definitions. Terms-only should be "List of X terms" (better than terminology, I think). Glossaries should be at "Glossary of [concept]". Terms should only have articles if they are encyclopedic. This means, per WP:WINAD, they need to have articles that describe more than meaning, usage, and etymology of the term itself. They need to be able to describe whatever the term represents. Creating masses of stubs copied from information we already have in one coherent place is not likely to be helpful, though. I hope this is helpful; have I answered your questions? Dmcdevit·t 03:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. My only questions are: Is there an in-line link to Wiktionary for words in a Wikipedia article? It's impractical to have a big row of {{wiktionarypar}} infoboxes to provide links to definitions for several words in a technical article. Something easier than the syntax: [[wikt:peristyle|peristyle]]. Maybe some kind of footnote template function or <ref> tag that can output the required wikt. definitions, in a terse form, at the bottom of a Wikipedia article? - that would be useful.

Can the anchor link syntax: "Wikt:Appendix:Architecture#word" be used in-line to go directly to the word, rather that the top of a long list? (The arch. glossary uses the ===x=== header instead of the "; word : definition" syntax to allow anchor links from other articles to directly jump to the glossary word). Is each definition in this appendix a /sub-page of the domain wikt:Appendix:Architecture?. Then, the syntax of a piped link on wikipedia would be: [[wikt:Appendix:Architecture/peristyle|peristyle]]??). How does "Wiktionary actually deal with definitions like these much better"? —Dogears 06:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no transclusion across projects, so the answer to your first, so if I undersand your first question, the answer is no. [[wikt:foo|foo]] is the best we can do. We could easily do a definition footnote like you suggest, but it would have to be inputted manually (and note that technical terms should usually be explained in context anyway). Take a look at, for example, wikt:Appendix:Theatre_terms#A. This is the best anchor linking I think is possible. It's not per word, but per section heading. A piped link like Anti-naturalism should do the job most times though. I mean that Wiktionary deals with definitions better because that's what it's for: when we want a definition, we want those things I mentioned like part of speech, pronunciation, etymology, synonyms, etc. that help better define the word, and Wiktionary is beter and more organized and standardized at doing that than us. Dmcdevit·t 04:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What happens to all those redirect for each word in the glossary once the glossary is nominated and deleted? —Dogears 00:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, which redirects? Only the Wikipedia article is plausibly in danger of deletion, but all the links to it should be changed to the Wiktionary article, so that no links become dead. Dmcdevit·t 07:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability

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)

Regarding User:Velebit

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)

Those are all to old to determine with CheckUser. An admin might block based on similar behavior, but I can't help. Dmcdevit·t 09:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Could you check for User:Purger and User:64.18.16.251? User:Ante Perkovic and I have strong suspicions that all those accounts are the same person. Who is molesting him and vandalising Croatia-related articles. --Dijxtra 09:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

64.18.16.251 is him. The account is again, too old to check. Dmcdevit·t 09:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Dmcdevit/CSD addition

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)

Thanks. I knew it wasn't an original idea, but I hadn't seen that proposal page before. It seems to me both that this idea is already backed by current policies and practices (part of my reasoning given), and that while the encyclopedia is certainly ready for it, the community may be there too, if it is expained well. I'm trying to think of the bet way to go about propsing this... Dmcdevit·t 23:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I contacted you few days ago so your userpage still sits on my watchlist, that's how I saw your proposed amendment to CSD. And, I must applaud you! It is exactly what I was thinking: that Wikipedia is growing to fast in wrong (i.e. unreferenced) direction and that we need to stop accepting unreferenced articles. But just couldn't remember the CSD. Bravo! Man, I'm so thrilled about this that I'm gonna give you a barnstar (and I that almost never, this is my second to give away):

		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)

Call me when it's time to vote! --Dijxtra 07:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, wow. Thanks. I'll try to get moving on this. :-) Dmcdevit·t 07:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson Jihad

Please review this newest AfD, your opinion would be appreciated. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Daborhe

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)

User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow

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)

Bicycling terminology

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)

Can you provide an actual reason other than that other inappropriate articles also exist? What is wrong wth housing it at Wiktionary where it is more appropriate? It's not going to be erased. Dmcdevit·t 01:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Kven-user sockpuppets

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)

Hm, perhaps so. CheckUser doesn't account for behavior, and that doesn't seem to confirm it in this case. Any admin acting on that information should take that into account. Thanks for pointing this out. Dmcdevit·t 19:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, but perhaps you want to remove the user from the list. He may get mad if he is accused of being a sockpuppet.Labongo 08:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi Dmcdevit, please check your e-mail. --ManiF 02:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sosomk again...

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)

Kosovo Fof

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)

your evidence - list of my reverts

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:

• enumerated link 141
• enumerated link 142
• enumerated link 146
• enumerated link 152
• enumerated link 154
• 155 - kinda a revert, kinda not

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)

I think I was including the initial edit reverted to without saying so. Corrected. Dmcdevit·t 05:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, what exactly did you correct? You still say that all your references are reversions, but .. they're not all reversions. A simple solution would be to replace the assertion that *all* of the edits were rv's to an assertion that says that *most* are. Fresheneesz 03:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias

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, —Khoikhoi 04:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis Corporation Exists!!

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

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)

regarding your post to my Talk page

Check the histories of all the articles you cited. Many editors agree with my edits there and have expanded on them so consensus is behind me. Plus, in many of the cases I WAS removing vandalism using popups.Please point out specific instances of reverts that you disagree with as vandalism and cite diffs.In several cases since your posts I have supported other editors who have also been fixing blanket reverts (also considered vandalism).

Before you make summary judgements, I request that you investigate all the sides of the situation.Hkelkar 19:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus, the things you told me about 3RR apply to other users involved as well yet, from your contribs, I don;t see such warnings provided t them as well. Isn't that a double standard?Hkelkar 19:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

PA on me

Is this kind of edit summary acceptable:

[8]

Plus, is it acceptable to remove defwarn templates in one's talk page?Hkelkar 21:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Glossaries

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)

e-mail

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)

Hi - just sent you a fresh message. Rama's arrow 23:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swadesh lists

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)

It's not the oldest one. See WP:AFD/Old. There is always a backlog at AfD. I'm content to wait. Dmcdevit·t 16:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of The Bevonshire Label article

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)

GreekWarrior Arbcom case

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)

Confirmed. I'm going to propose a general ban now. Dmcdevit·t 17:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks!

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)

Admin-only IRC

Hey, can I get an invite to #wikipedia-en-admins? It says it's invite-only, and I'm an admin. Thanks. Nishkid64 01:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

RFCU Cretanpride

There are recent confirmed socks in the noincluded section of the page. Cheers. Thatcher131 17:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My Checkuser

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)

The problem is that, and rightfully so, a self-requested CheckUser won't convince anyone. IP evidence is forgeable. A self-request may just mean that the person has covered up after himself. Most people think that a self-requested CheckUser doesn't clear up anything. But, if you're here and well, you're here and well. Wikipedia is a wiki, mistakes are okay, and we're a forgiving bunch. WP:AGF. There isn't really a need for a concept of "clearing one's name". My advice is to go about things like normal, keep up good behavior, civility and lack of edit warring, and let time pass. You'll be fine. :-) Dmcdevit·t 20:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spartaz"

{I threaded this to save you having to remember what this was about.}

Thank you for explaining why this is not a good idea. I'm afraid that I'm still very concerned/upset.

I have effectively been convicted of using a sockpuppet to game 3RR despite the fact that a checkuser could only at worse come back as inconclusive because the IP concerned was in the states and I'm in Denmark. While I take your point about forgiveness/AGF I have seen enough evidence that any block (however flimsy) means that the blockee is assumed to be in the wrong next time because of their bad history. An RFA (if I were interested, which I am not) for example would fail for this any time in the next 12 months - if not longer. Also to be perfectly honest I don't see why I should wait for forgiveness for something I haven't done.

I'm not a combative editor and I clearly shouldn't have reverted Mikkalai three times (even if he was removing tags required by policy). Nevertheless, no matter what the issue I will automatically be seen to be in the wrong - (even if I'm following policy and no matter how unreasonable the other party). It seems terribly wrong that I can be convicted as "obvious" when no real investigation takes place and that after the event there is no mechanism whatsoever that allows an editor to show that they were not acting improperly. I realise that we are unlikely to go any further than this but there must be something seriously wrong with the system where otherwise productive and well intentioned editors can be forced to reconsider their participation in these circumstances.

Sorry to be so unreasonable about this but I have spent 20 years working in an area where credibility and personal honesty are absolutely integral to being able to function effectively. I have never had my honesty challenged and certainly not on evidence as flimsy as this. --Spartaz 22:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciated your help and time. Spartaz 05:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser

Thanks for processing my Request for checkuser so quickly. I appreciate it. --Descendall 00:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Stevensons88

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)

Snle

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)

Also Notsnle (talk · contribs). ;-) Khoikhoi 18:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the case, in brief:

User:Snle has engaged in deleting verfiable content from articles such as Shenyang, Dalian and Harbin, repeatedly breaking the 3RR rule. He/she has also repeatedly tried to make Manchuria into an disambiguation file, and in so doing deleted verifiable conent from the article. When challenged on his/her edits, Snle has displayed a hostile attitude.

Snle has also engaged in abusive behavior on a number of occasions by using sock puppets. Some of the most blantant examples of this can found below:

Dalian diff 1

Dalian diff 2

Dalian diff 3

Hope this is enough.--Niohe 20:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

CU & Comments

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)

RFCU Leyasu

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)

Extended block of my work IP

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)

Luna Santin has tentatively processed the above request as you were unavailable. Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns, or need to discuss anything regarding this situation. Have a good day! --NMChico24 23:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Mail

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)

A Barnstar for Dmcdevit

		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)

User talk:NMChico24

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)

No problem. I'll have to look at that again. Dmcdevit·t 17:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Lists of given names

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)

FYI

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? Khoikhoi 18:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Also see this. Khoikhoi 19:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of Shiva's Trident

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)

What is the deal with the block? Wikipedia is not subject to the whims of trolls. I find your actions highly questionable. Who cares what BhaiSaab believes, he's only gaming the system. He's been blocked 9 times, there's something wrong with appeasing a user who wikipedia has decided to punish 9 times.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You're the only admin that fell for this bait. Blnguyen said

“ 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)

Dmcdevit is a member of the arbcom, so he has access to CheckUser priviledges. I haven't asked dmc about it, but he and other arbcom members get requests on IRC for stuff like this. That is probably where this came from. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

RFCU of Shiva's Trident

Where have you established abuse or block evasion?Hkelkar 19:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Jithesh (2nd nomination)

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)

I added stuff to The ani report. I noticed Nileena may have stalked my edits though not in a negative manner. Thought you may be interested.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser

Thanks for the help. Auto movil 03:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser: Amoaveni

Thank you very much for the quick reaction! Shabdiz 07:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ummm

Did you forget this, or still waiting for it to clear the list? Thatcher131 16:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

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)

A User Has Been Consistently Harassing Me

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)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Snle

I just emailed you about it. --SunStar Net 11:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Gnanapiti

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)

Can you please recheck the issue and rectify as soon as possible because some users are taking advantage of this.Gnanapiti 18:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The IP evidence is clear. Dmcdevit·t 18:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What are the furthur steps to be taken after this? This user is harrassing and overwhelming others and pushing his POV. I request strict action against them. Some of his misdeeds are at Talk:belgaum talk:belgaum_border_dispute and Talk:Saare_jahan_se_achcha. Mahawiki 19:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser

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)

RFCU Question

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)

Please read the WP:RFCU instructions: "In most cases, any block or other action based on the outcome will not be taken by the checkuser-people or the clerks. Instead, you will have to do this yourself. Instead, you will have to do this yourself." If I had to make all the decisions about blocking, the responses to CU requests would be considerably slower. That's something any admin can do. Dmcdevit·t 21:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links

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)

Hm, you're right, I didn't notice it was protected. But I gave clear reasoning for the edit in my edit summary, and I don't think there was any disagreement. Do you have any objections to what I added? I don't understand what you mean by calling it the "current issue of the day". It's a very big problem already adressed in WP:EL that could do with being more explicit. Dmcdevit·t 03:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that it uses up real-estate on the page to address a specific current problem that may diminish in days, weeks or months. It's not a very well worded statement. And there were better ways to clarify the issue than the way used. See the change given in the above diff edit on the workshop version, which addresses the problem but in a way that is not tied solely to Youtube and the current issue. Guidelines and policy should be future proofed and generic, rather than a list of specific adhoc notices on the 'problem of the day'.

If you'd brought up your idea of what to add before adding it, this would have been brought up. But for now I think you should revert the change, and bring it to discussion so people who might object but can't edit the page can have a say. --Barberio 03:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to revert this. --Barberio 12:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? It wasn't undiscussed and you seem to be the only one that disagrees. Youtube isn't a "current issue"; it's not going away any time soon. But the text I added used YouTube as an explicit example of video sharing sites, it wasn't only about YouTube. Wikipdedia is a wiki. There is no "real-estate" to be worried about on pages. If the issue does become unimportant, we can edit it out. There is no reason to seek a static "future proofed and generic" policy page, as we can always fix in a click what's not common practice any longer. IF that's realy your major objection, and I haven't seen anyone else objecting, I don't see any reason to remove it. Dmcdevit·t 19:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The kind of change you wanted to make was not discussed. There was a discussion on YouTube, and people generally agreed that something should be done. But no actual discussion on any proposed changes to the guideline.

And just because we have unlimited space, doesn't mean the concept of 'limited real-estate' isn't at play. There are still very good reasons to not write in a rambling manner, and to avoid feature creep and making guidelines harder to read.

Justifying an edit because it can be 'changed with a click' does not wash when the page is protected.

And all this regardless, breaking protection on a page is not something to be shrugged off with 'Wikipedia is a wiki'.

This is the last time I'm going to ask you to revert your change. You made a mistake, which you've admitted, and you should correct this mistake. It was a bad edit, made in a bad way. --Barberio 22:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't make out whether you're being deliberately obtuse here or not. You know that there was indeed a discussion on actual changes to the guideline, since you commented on it (Wikipedia_talk:External_links#YouTube_and_special_care) and were th eonly one of the four people there to disagree. In combination with the thread on AN, the change seemed obvious to me. If I had noticed tha page was protected, I wouldn't have made the edit, and if you can find an admin to revert it, I won't object. But, why would another admin do so? Keep in mind the reasons that admins shouldn't edit protected pages, not just the rule. That edit is not why the page was protected in the first place, and there is no evidence of opposition other than from you, and it makes sense. I suspect you want me to revert because you would have reverted yourself if it wasn't protected, when what you should do is raise your objections to it on the talk page, because it has support. Dmcdevit·t 22:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I resent your attempt to ascribe bad faith on my behalf to defend your own mistake. I consider your behaviour over this to be very poor. --Barberio 11:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Pl. accept my apology, if I am not supposed to reply here. I am new.

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)

Responded at the case page. Dmcdevit·t 01:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

May I seek your permission to provide details now? Swadhyayee 01:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

from User:Sosomk

Allright, I was just having a bad day, Cheers! Sosomk 18:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

65.174.252.12

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)

Blocked. Dmcdevit·t 20:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking.

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)