User talk:Isotope23/Archive 12

Science Communication

Hi Isotope, thanks for replying! I'm sorry, I am still a bit confused by how to work all of this. yes, science communication and science journalism are not the same and yes I really would like to work on a page in my own userspace rather than going live right away. I didn't realise I could do that or I would have done so to start with. I don't know how to do it. Could you help? Sorry about this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Becks3uk (talk • contribs) 10:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Abusive language

Hi, Isotope23.
Here I report you the repeated actions of abusive language of user:Evlekis on Wikipedia. These can be found on his userpage.
See this:

• "cunt" - Pizda (in Slavic languages). Not used in polite language.
• "cock (penis)" - Kurac (in South Slavic languages, I think also in E Slavic languages). Not used in polite language.
• "fucking" - Ebanje (in most Slavic languages it's said "jebanje", but I think that in Macedonian and in Bulgarian they use hyperekavian form, "ebanje". Also, in other Slavic languages, "ebanje" reminds on "full word form", and mentioning that "shortened" form is the thing that's not used in polite language.
• "fart" - Paardenlul. Variation of prditi.
• "fucker" - Caralho. "karati" in Serbian = "fucking", so sounds like "f*ckalho".
• "vluggertje" - in Dutch "quickie".
• "knullar" - in Swedish "fucking".
• "gomno". - Sounds like "govno", in Slavic languages meaning = "shit".

Also, many curses used.

• "go to c*ck" - Idi U Kurac (in South Slavic languages). Heavy curse.
• "Suck c*ck" - Pushi Kurac. (in South Slavic languages). Reads as "puši kurac" in S Slavic languages, if you want to check the meaning.
• "vaffanculo" - in Italian. Not used in polite language.

Uploaded pictures with abusive language. Also, the picture this user, user:Evlekis, uploaded, contains text with abusive language.
[1].
Leccacazzi. "Cazzi" in Italian means "cocks, penises". Not used in polite language. Leccami la mia figa'. "Figa" in some Italian dialects means "cunt".
Contains text in Hungarian. Hungarian user might tell you the meaning.

• User Evlekis also uploaded this picture, containing text with words "cunt". [2].

Here're some changes, so you can see that he, user:Evlekis, uploaded that text on his userpage [[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc.. Mostly in the section A_Fictional_Story_unrelated_to_actual_events...well...a_few....
We don't have to tolerate such users.
Wikipedia has explicit policy of dealing with such persons and such behaviour. This was not just one incident, as you see this is a bunch of repeated actions/edits.
He should be banned from editing Wikipedia. Kubura 10:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• You might want to bring this to ANI... I'm not nearly a good enough linguist that I feel comfortable blocking for this sort of thing.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Silent AfD

Of course not - unstrike away :) ELIMINATORJR 21:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation user:DIREKTOR together user:Zenanarh

See [11] --Giovanni Giove 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for making you the "complaints department" again, but since he simply refuses to lay off I feel I must respond. The "reverts" this guy speaks of are ordinary edits. He persisted in adding info that was still dicussed between myself, Zenanarh and other Italian users to provoke someone into breaching the 3RR. He made seven reverts in one sitting earlier and it looks like he's gonna get away with it. Now he reports other people for making mere edits (and only four of those)... DIREKTOR 21:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Hedgehog01

Hi there; if this guy is blocked why is he reverting my removals of abuse of other editors from his talk page, publishing my Wiki details on an external message board & accusing me of breaching 2RR (whatever that is!)? Your advice welcome before I pass this on elsewhere. --Rodhullandemu 22:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You can still edit your own talkspace even when blocked unless the page is protected (as it is now). I didn't protect the page when I blocked the account.--Isotope23 ^talk 03:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Don Murphy

Hi Isotope - I'm not sure if we've crossed paths before (I think i've seen your name around) - but nice to meet you nonetheless...

I saw your note in the edit summary of your removal of Don Murphy's official site, and thought I'd come here.

My position is that if we are to have an article on somebody / something then to not link to their acknowledged 'official' site oversteps the mark of neutrality (ie. we're qualitatively analysing the link as unacceptable which fundamentally means taking a point of view) - it's also a bit embarrassing!

Anyhoo - I also wondered if you could point me in the direction of any centralised discussion (or i'm happy to discuss this here with you if you'd prefer) - I'd like to be able to restore the link.

thanks, Purples 07:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting here. I don't believe there is a centralized discussion anywhere about this, but it probably would not be a bad idea to initiate a request for comment on this. There are a number of editors who have a very real and legitimate privacy concern with information posted at that site and I don't think linking it in the article serves Wikipedia's best interests or purposes. External links are a "nice to have", but I don't seen them as absolutely necessary unless they are being used to source the article. This isn't a "moral judgement" as Mangoe (talk · contribs) called it; it's simply weighing the benefits of having the link in versus the negatives. That said I would be totally comfortable with a RFC and following the consensus there... I just don't particularly want to see that link back in the article until the community at large is involved in considering this... it isn't really something that should be decided by one or two editors.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

totally agree that we're going to need a clear community decision at some point, and it's equally clear that your edits are thoughtful, and in good faith (thanks!) - you've probably seen the discussion under way here, I'll keep further replies on this to the talk page or that developing discussion, cheers, Purples 23:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC on User:Italiavivi

I have requested community comment on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Italiavivi. I know you have contacted Italiavivi previously in attempts to resolve his behavioral problem on the project. This is just a friendly notice. --Hu12 19:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

DHeyward Trolling and Wikistalking me

Hello, I first posted this to Thatcher131s page but he is busy. Dheyward is now not only Wikistalking me, but agitating about me on Mongos page. Could you please check this and ask him to stop?

User:DHeyward is following me around and (IMO) trying to provoke me. He showed up on an article I am active on for months Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation that he had never edited, made a 'troll edit' and then erased my message to him advicing him not to troll the article. [12] The facts that he wont communicate about this issue which I posted to him in good faith and his troll edit to the article shows that he lacks good faith intentions on this article and to me (IMO). There are millions of articles on Wiki. Could you ask him to leave me alone and find another article? IMO his only object is to haunt me and get me to bite. I have now decided to avoid certain articles like Larry Craig so I wont be provoked. I am going to stay away from Crockspots favorite articles as much as I can. And I have since my block! And now I go to an article that I have been editing for months and Dheyward Wikistalks me there and haunts me. Please get him to stop and leave me be on that article. Thanks. •smedleyΔbutler• 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Navigation bar

There doesn't seem to be a nested table, but just adding a second </table> tag worked without the text bunching up. Without it, have a look at one of the project's pages such as Students to see what I mean. --Geniac 19:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Good call!--Isotope23 ^talk 12:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

An ArbCom case on the BADSITES thing....

is being considered.. - i thought i'd let you know, both as a good editor who may have an opinion, and also because in my short tuppence worth that i've submitted here, I've linked to our chat above as an example of the mild confusion that the lack of a clear policy causes.. cheers - Purples 06:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My removal of that link wasn't based on WP:BADSITES per se, it was more as an interim precautionary measure because there are several editors they are trying to "out" (myself included... luckily the person who was "researching" me did a poor enough job that they got ever single piece of personal information about me wrong). As consensus was apparently to keep the link in I absolutely respect that consensus. I probably won't comment there because I generally agree with what DTobias wrote about a measured, balanced attitude towards site links rather than an absolutist one (though I don't extend that same agreement to his essay). Regardless, thanks for the heads up!--Isotope23 ^talk 12:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nysted with Sucherman and Walker

• Thanks for the help on links to Nysted/Walker/Sucherman discographies at AMG

Reliable sources like AMG should be in/on every musicians article, in my opinion. A discography gives a wide range of information that editors can use as a valuable resource. Musicgarden 18:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR breaking by DIREKTOR

See [13], Marco Polo and talk:Marco Polo. D. has deleted sources, where Polo refer to himself ad "Venitian". That is imposing POV against the evidence. Regards --Giovanni Giove 18:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Afrika paprika on Roger Boscovich

See here [14] and here [15]. Regards--Giovanni Giove 20:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like all the changes were reverted.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

White Rabbits (band)

Hello. My page for the above mentioned band was deleted and I am unclear as to why. The band was notable enough to be featured on NPR's World Cafe (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14239777), have thier albums sold through Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/Fort-Nightly-White-Rabbits/dp/B000OHZK0Y), and to have several influential magazines and online publications (such as Pitchfork Media and All Music Guide) review thier debut album (http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/whiterabbits/fortnightly). Please reconsider your decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peces (talk • contribs) 01:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Moot point because the admin who recently deleted it restored it. Just for future reference, having an album sold an Amazon isn't any evidence of notabilty per WP:BIO (pretty much anyone can sell on Amazon if they want to fork over the money); the other links however do demonstrate notability... they just didn't exist when I originally deleted this June-13.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A question / some advice requested about Gothic Chess

hi Isotope,

I've made some edits at Gothic Chess, and wondered if you might have a second to take a look. Basically, there's a conflict of interest issue with the game's inventor editing, but perhaps the larger issue is one of notability / vanity generally - I've never instigated a request for comment on an article, and although this or an AfD might be a good way of getting more eyes to consider this article's pros and cons generally, it will obviously raise the temperature once again, perhaps unnecessarily.

If you've got a few minutes to take a look, your advice about the right track for the article would be welcome....

cheers, Purples 05:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of the situation. I did some edits there a while ago. WP:RFC is a better venue if you are concerned with the content pros and cons but accept that that the game is in and of itself notabile.. If you are concerned about the notability of the game (and this may be a very valid concern; none of these chess variants seem to have a whole lot of external notability independent of their creators), WP:AFD is the way to go.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the advice - i've asked for multiple reliable sources on the talk page, and I'll give all editors there a bit of a chance to dig them up, but in their prolonged absence I think an AfD is probably a good idea. cheers, Purples 12:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for a moderation

I've started an RfC in Marco Polo article. user:Zenanarh has suddenly wrote a personal attack against me (btw quite meaninless), that I've removed. I'm quite sure that it will restored by DIREKTOR or by the same Z., so that event this RfC will be fail. IMHO Z. has broken the rules, (or maybe, me deleting the lines...). I suggest to tell your opinion... that just a last effort to save the RfC. Here te lines that I've removed:
"- :Nothing for discussion here! Or maybe Mr. G.G. expects that we take role of history arbitration commitee to decide which theory is correct?! Very funny and childish. This is an encyclopedia not totalitar regime which should decide what is history and what is not. There are 2 theories, one disputes another and that's all. Nothing more or less. That's how it should be edited in the article. "Mr. XY wrote that Polo was a Venetian in year -abcd-, mr. WZ disputed it in year -efgh-" - this is the key.
"
Tx. --Giovanni Giove 11:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ! Anything that criticizes your work on Wiki is "personal attack" for you! Is previous sentence also a personal attack? Sorry Isotope for arguing with this "personally attacked" person on your talk page. That's all from me. Cheers. Zenanarh 11:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User Griot Incivility

You previously stated that referring to Griot on my talk page as a "hysterically paranoid info-deleting professor" was grossly incivil and bordered on a personal attack, and so you blocked me from Wikipedia for 24 hours for it. So then I expect that you will now do the same with him for the following edits, where he refers to me as a FREAK and even altered my own words to make it look as though I was actually referring to myself as a FREAK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=153021407&oldid=153021211

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Griot#What_if_I_am_a_gun_freak.3F_So_what.3F

He has also added a link on his talk page that points directly to mine in an apparent attempt at starting more trouble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Griot

As a Wikipedia admin I hope that you will deal with his behavior exactly as you dealt with mine. Thanks.

--BillyTFried 08:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please report this to the admin noticeboard.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

List of PDF software

Why have you nominated most of software from List of PDF software for deletion without making proper research first? While some of them are truly not notable, some of them (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pstoedit, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PDFedit, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PdfTeX ...) are clearly notable and widespread enough to stay here. I think you should be a bit more careful when nominating for deletion next time to avoid wasting time of many wikipedians in useless discussions with clear outcome. --Mpx 16:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No...none of those are "clearly notable"... most of them are clearly not notable in the sense of meeting any guideline criteria for an article, they just apparently have enough individuals interested in positing WP:ILIKEIT not votes at the AFD to make a keep consensus. If I see similar articles I will nominate them for deletion as well. If you feel it is such a waste of your time to be involved in such discussions, feel free to abstain from them.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you followed up on that list of non-notable software? Good for you. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes... I did.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Question about Brett Favre Page

I was just wondering about this User:800 Home Runs. What is going on with him. I did some editing on the Brett Favre page and like 5 minutes later he changed it back. I had a discussion with him but he seems very protective of this article. Also I noticed that it seems like you and other users have been reverting all the editing he has done. I was just wondering what is going on and if we are reverting everything he edits. Please respond here. Thanks!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's a Starwars1955 (talk · contribs) sockpuppet. He is banned from editing so yes, all his edits can be reverted regardless of merit.--Isotope23 ^talk 01:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the quick response. I thought that was the case but I figured I would ask first. As such I have reverted his edit in the talk page (he keeps on archiving it for some reason) and an edit on the page itself. Thanks for the help.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I am having problems with Starwars1955 (talk · contribs). He is now editing under the name User:Sara Aulepp. I placed the sockpuppet template on the page. He keeps on reverting my revert of his edits. He is also archiving the talk page while there are still active convos. I havent been working with him that long so I figured it would be better if someone that has dealt with him more would take the lead. He is really starting to annoy me :p
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you notice any more likely socks you can report them here or to ANI... if I'm around I will take a look. I've dealt with him enough that I can usually spot SW1955 socks very easily, but my participation here is limited for the foreseeable future.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Dear sir, as your participation is limited, can you speak with another sysop who trusts you to keep his/her eyes on the situation? I tried garnering support from one particular user, but he seemed a bit reluctant to just jump in and start blocking users. It would be most helpful if there were an admin around who could block a host of his socks when they surface. Thanks! –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 12:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can convince someone to keep an eye on it. I've already done a few things that should at least slow him down.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In case I haven't made it clear, much obliged for your help. Thank you! Skybunny 13:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protection?

Whaddya think? I think it's sufficiently disruptive, and I don't think there's much reason to grant any more rope. WLU 14:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked the editor... I'm going to hold off on a talkpage protection at that time though.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As you like, the talk page is a steady back and forth between the anonymous superhero and other editors - ASH posts abuse and insults, someone reverts, more insults, more reverts. I considered posting messages on talk pages, but figured it's futile. Initially amusing, now merely sad. WLU 16:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Still, I'm hesitant to simply block and deny an unblock request with a template. If it continues I will reassess that decision.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

S'cool, it's not like it's the end of the world if a couple editors spin their wheels on an anon talk page.

Favour - can you revert for me? I'm not allowed to edit that particular page. Thanks, WLU 16:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How the heck did you get page banned from Lupus?--Isotope23 ^talk 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm such a manipulative fuck Gosh, I certainly wasn't hoping you'd ask... From my younger, and shorter-tempered days. Incidentally, can I have your comment on the more recent discussion here? Mostly for a comment on how similar problems are or are not resolved in other pages. I'm not looking for a 3O yet, just if there's a policy or guideline I'm not aware of. Thanks, WLU 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sudacas page

I just wonder why you have such ability to erase all the things before contrasting the sources

Before erasing anything in the page sudacas, read the links below attached, get inform of the spanish people point of view, read the main newspapers, tv and media.

Do not erase anything because "you " think is not reliable. The newspaper "20 minutos" is a reliable source and the poll was made just to express the feelings of the spanish public, one person one vote, as simple as it is.

Read the newspaper, which is sold free is Madrid, and ask someone about the newspaper before erasing things you obviously do not know.

It seems to be you have never been in Spain or do not know anything about that country, but you have taken the "spanish inquisition" seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manrodmar 99 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have the ability because what you are adding meets no reasonable definition of a reliable source. I'm no expert on Spanish public sentiment, what I do know is statistical analysis and I can point out numerous flaws in your usage of this poll, the text you've added to the article, and your apparent understanding of the results. Please find a scientific poll of you want to try and add statistical data to the article.

Oh, and I've been to Spain... lovely country.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

sudacas page 2

well now I have a 3 strike. Vielen dank fur dein helfe.

How easy is to erase and how difficult to understand the reality.

Isotope23 , have you ever been in Spain? of course not.

your only mission is to erase comments without knowing if they are true or not, read, get inform, go to school, learn, and more than that go outside to see what the public have to say, because I think that you pass too much time in front of a computer as a censor to know the reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manrodmar 99 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I've already been to school... and I go outside whenever possible. My only goal left is to be a fireman when I grow up 8P.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Mr. Isotope, maybe some of the people here are correct in their assessment of you and your actions. It would not be the first time that a little power circumvented even the best of intentions. You make invalid assumptions and hurt innocent people.

Hurting innocent people is not the design of this project and it is not what you are entrusted to do, as an administrator. Many people have different agendas here than you and they have just as much of a right to voice what they feel is important. Your tools will ultimately be useless. Read Andrew Keen's book. You might actually learn something. 121.165.61.151 02:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If they are banned from editing, they have no right to voice anything here. Sorry; not my problem if someone made their bed and has to lie in it (and in the case you seem to be referring to there are multiple individuals banned... that account is most definitely one of those individuals).

On a side note, I've already read The Cult of the Amateur... he had some valid points (particularly in regards to piracy), but by and large Keen is too much of an alarmist & protectionist (particularly in regards to his whining about Craigslist etc). The problem isn't Web 2.0... the problem is people incapable of reading and assessing sources critically, whether they be a blog, Wikipedia, or CNN.com.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• The "know it all" approach to life works well when there is nobody around, or there are people aroud that actually believe in what you are preaching. In the real world, it fails, because you are not a creator, you are an observer. Some people make things happen, and there are people like you, wondering what happened. The rude awakening that Keen talks about will appear to you after the fact. Kind of like the NASDAQ bubble of 2000. 208.54.95.187 20:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. That market is still down 50% after 7 years. When the big change happens at WP, everyone will go ? WTF? 208.54.95.187 20:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll go sit on the sofa and read a novel. Maybe drink a glass of wine. Maybe, if the change is upsetting enough, even make some popcorn. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Me... I'll just start restocking that old Y2K bunker with MREs and ammunition.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Gayette

Hi, I have left my response to the WP:ANI discussion about my actions relating to the above article here. It would have been nice to see some common courtesy shown by advising me that this discussion was taking place to give me the chance to defend my actions, all of which have been entirely reasonable. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, someone should have informed you of the ANI thread. Usually I check to see if that has happened, this time I didn't. Sorry about that. I saw the thread and I didn't see any reason to take admin action, so I didn't.--Isotope23 ^talk 01:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you from the Nysted camp!

I am grateful for your help in eliminating the Lee Nysted user and talk pages. Cheers from Tierra del Sol. We come in peace and mean you no harm. Just checking in and noticed the work you did. Thanks! 199.0.84.228 04:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem.--Isotope23 ^talk 11:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is one for the record books.

<removed link> Inclusionist, I am. WOW, 199.2.112.170 21:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't link that site here... it will be removed. I have no interest at all what transpires there or the opinions expressed therein.--Isotope23 ^talk 23:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits from Banned Sockpuppets

Thank you for your reply. Now, I suspect that the sockpuppet User:HarveyCarter (HC), and all of his 26 subsequent sockpuppets, are really another Wikipedian that edits in good faith. Can I have the IP addresses of the 27 HC accounts checked against other users? My suspicion is that it is AOL account based in London/Kent, 195.93.21.xxx, and the REAL user is also logging in from this IP range. Thanks again for your assistance. IP4240207xx 19:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks, Archive 12! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed today with a unanimous 79/0/0 tally. It feels great to be appreciated, and I will try my best to meet everyone's expectations. If you have any advice or tips, feel free to pass them along, as I am sure that I will need them! Cheers, hmwith talk 21:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment at Video Professor

Why thank you. Very kind of you to say. --barneca (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Arch conversation

I'm deleting the conversation from my Talk page, since I thought the conversation is supposed to continue where it started. --Earthboat 20:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, whatever works for you. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Insults and offensive comments

I want to inform you that after this moment, I will start to revert all the offensive comment insert by user:Kubura, User:Zenanarh, user:Zmaj and User:DIREKTOR. I've already deleted a comment by User:Zenanarh, just see ma history (it is uncivil to use nickname and to post insults, according to his habits). If necessary I can link you an amount of insults that Z. posted against me. I suppose that I sholud be warned and blocked. Let us try to go to a more civil contest. Let me know, plx. Thamk you.--Giovanni Giove 15:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Archived talk page

Hi, Isotope23.
I've archived the talkpage of the article Republic of Dubrovnik.
I did it once (Aug 17, 2007), but user:DIREKTOR reverted it with comment "Don't".
I've refrained from any fight and explanations with him.
Still, even than, the page was tooo huge (105 kB's). Today was even longer, I think about 135 kB's long.
I'm afraid that there's a possibility that someone'll again restore the talkpage to the pre-archivization version. That'll make problems for others to work or contribute to that page. Not to mention that it's a problem to wait till the page opens, because of its big size.
So, here I ask you to intervene/warn users that'll try to restore the pre-archivization giga-version of the page and prevent such further attempts. Sincerely, Kubura 07:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Bwjs

I noticed you blocked two of his former accounts by his request. They've got vandalism histories, and he's already being a disruptive editor again with his new account. See here and a series of diffs starting here. Therefore, I'm not so sure that allowing the account switch was a good idea other than to hide vandal history. MSJapan 21:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Wiki Florida 2007 subpages

Just a question, one admin to another. Since Wiki Florida 2007 is an obvious shared, I'm not that aware of policy but would it be proper to speedy all the subpages? [16] -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there isn't policy on this, but I'd say they could all be deleted per common sense that Wikipedia isn't myspace or a free webhost. If you are concerned about someone making a stink about a speedy delete where there isn't an exact speedy rationale, you could always do WP:PROD.--Isotope23 ^talk 21:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Mudaliar and Sengunthar

Hey Isotope,

Saedirof (talk · contribs) is manufacturing references and heavily manipulating academic references. A lot of references (valid academic citations) prove beyond doubt that the group Isai Vellalar are an integral part of Sengunthar (a caste/clan in India) who also go by the name Kaikolar.

For example a quote from reference article (Union Territory of Pondicherry By Francis Cyril Antony, Pondicherry (India : Union Territory) ) clearly says:

Isai Vellalas are none other than that section of Sengunthar Mudaliars or Kaikolars who were associated with the system of Devadasis

I am providing the google link to the exact page(with the quote) within the article in case you don't have access to a library.

[17]

But Saedirof (talk · contribs) is rephrasing and manipulating the words from the reference to push his POV in the Mudaliar article, while he completely deletes valid references from other article Sengunthar. Check this: [18] where he manipulates the words to say they are a part of Vellalar when in fact the reference actually says they are a section of Sengunthar. He blatantly keeps deleting or manipulating valid sources that editors have contributed in order to hide the truth about Kaikolar. This has got to stop. Please take some action so that he does not manipulate the references. He is also manufacturing bogus references from random websites which go against Wiki policy. Thanks. Casper21 02:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been nominally watching that article for a while because of various POV pushing there. Give me sometime to review the latest round.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mudaliar and Thondai-Mandala Saiva Vellala and Sengunthar

Hi Isotope23,

Clearly the govt. of India has classified Isai Vellalar and Sengunthar separately as shown in my proof.

Secondly all my proofs are using the inscriptions from Archealogical Society of India and journal articles and books. So there are no manipulations going on.

Thirdly, Casper21 has no proofs for the claims made in the paragraph Thondai-Mandala Saiva Vellala. All his proofs are valid sources but they are referring the group Thondai-Mandala Vellala or KondaiKatti Vellala. His sources are

a. Irschick, Eugene F. Dialogue and History: Constructing South India, 1795-1895. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. direct web reference: http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft038n99hg&brand=eschol b. Order and Disorder in Colonial South India Eugene F. Irschick Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3 c. Lionel Place, 1799 East India Company Report, para. 59. ( This is not a direct reference but a reference in a reference) d. http://www.hindu.com/fr/2004/09/03/stories/2004090300780600.htm

However he insists that these are valid references to his claim when patently they are not.

Fourthly, his claim that Mudali is the caste title of only Thondai mandala Vellala is also a manipulation of the reference. The reference states that Mudali is the title of all Thondai mandala Vellalas. It does not state that only Thondai mandala Vellala has the title of Mudali.

Saedirof 18:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Valid references have been provided in the article that speak for themselves. Saedirof (talk · contribs) is attempting to deviate this discussion by creating ambiguity about the Mudaliar title when in fact the actual locus of dispute is that he has been deleting and manipulating the references regarding Kaikolar/Isai Vellalar/Sengunthar. This is just a new tactic he has adopted in order to create confusion so that he can conveniently insert ridiculous lies into the various sections.Casper21 20:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sengunthar

Hi Isotope23,

Can you also please edit protect Sengunthar article and keep a watch over the discussions?

thanks Saedirof 18:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Isotope,

I am wondering why you did not edit protect when I requested you to and waited until Casper21 reverted all my edits even though he has wrongly claimed that he has included my valid references? Are you supporting his point of view? I'd like my version of the article to be locked.

Saedirof 20:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple editors or same editor pushing POV in Mudaliar

You have stated that "Multiple editors are reverting you and you continue to just re-add the reverted text with minimal comment". I think all these editors are just the same editor. Can you plz help me in checking that? Thanks

Saedirof 18:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple academic references for Mudaliar/ Sengunthar articles

Saedirof has been constantly vandalising the article using multiple socks as he is unable to accept the various references that prove that Isai Vellalar alias Kaikolar are Devadasis. I provide some of the academic references that Saedirof that Saedirof keeps deleting from the articles in order to push his POV for his own personal reasons.

The following reference clealry states that Isai Vellalar are actually a part of Sengunthars.

1. Union Territory of Pondicherry By Francis Cyril Antony, Pondicherry (India : Union Territory)

[19]

Quoted from book: Isai Vellalas are none other than that section of Sengunthar Mudaliars or Kaikolars who were associated with the system of Devadasis

2. Weaver Folk Traditions as a Source of History, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-62 (1982)[20]:

Text Quoted from article: At least one woman in every Kaikkola household was, according to age-old tradition dedicated to the temple as a devaradiyar or devadasi. The devaradiyar enjoyed special privileges in the days of the Vijayanagar empire and were the only women permitted a direct audience with the king.

3. Weaver Folk Traditions as a Source of History, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 47-62 (1982), [21]:

This research article (along with references to an inscription) describes how a devaradiyar or devadasi won special privileges for the Kaikkolas from the king Deva Raya II (A.D 1433)

More academic citations have been provided in the talk page, but Saedirof keeps deleting these references and also manipulates the words very sleazily in order to push his POV. He is now attempting to create some question of ambiguity by bringing in the Mudaliar title into the picture. Moreover, he is also questioning the academic citations which in fact quote numerous valid references and have been accepted in various conferences and journals as valid research articles in India and the world over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casper21 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Tweety21

I think banning someone from wiki because of expressing a concern for their information being given out is unethical. user Ward has made a number of abusive comments to my user page that I can document: Please look at the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tweety21

Ward was none too happy about this result! and set about harassing me right away by repeatedly posting up my private information to annoy me (the 3 revert rule!) I was told by Wikipedia administration to try this route before any other action. But a ban for someone who is upset about thier private info being posted borders on sadism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.138.188 (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Cluttering of talk page Mudaliar/ Sengunthar by Saedirof

Hi Isotope,

Saedirof (talk · contribs) is completley jumblin and cluttering the talk pages of Mudaliar article by copy-pasting same edits at different places in order to create confusion. Check [22]: here he cheekily jumbles the whole talk page under the false pretense of organizing it. If you look closer he is simply jumbling the edits in order to clutter the edits/proofs that go against his POV.

Check:[23] Scroll back up and see how he has copy pasted the same stuff in order to clutter my edits. This person is just keen on vandalising. Please protect talk page as well. Thanks. Casper21 20:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but talkpages for articles are never protected.--Isotope23 ^talk 21:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Unregistered "user LEO"

We have a case of an unregistered user, that signs himself as "LEO".
Not rarely, he writes in Italian language, also using language, that belongs to street shouting and cursing.
I mostly see and recognize him on the talkpages. I haven't dealt with him regarding article pages (AFAIK) - on the talkpages, it's easier to "recognize" him because of its "signing" and writing style.
On 29 Aug, he wrote this, when on the talkpage of Giovanni Giove.[24]. The text is in Italian. In that message, he says "francamente penso che certi amministratori facciano più danni di alcuni psicolabili croati", "verrei a consultare questa sedicente enciclopedia: enciclopedia sì ma di cazzate", "Persone come DIREKTOR, Kubura, No. 13 hanno evidenti problemi psicologici che li porta ad avversare tutto quel che è italiano: hanno bisogno di bravi psichiatri".
In that same message, he attacks you and other admins. There he said "Non ho alcuna fiducia in Isotope e altri amministratori: addirittura Isotope bloccò un italiano non registrato, che giustamente rimuoveva le cazzate anti-italiane di tali croati in diversi articoli" (I don't have confidence in Isotope and other administrators...)..."ma io non posso discutere a lungo con amministratori che neanche sanno dove hanno il buco per pisciare" (I cannot make long discussions with admins, that don't know to find a toilethole to p*ss".
"Cazzate" is the word derived from "cazz*", meaning male reproductive organ; word is not used in polite language.
I can translate you the whole message.
That user mostly acts from addresses like 151.33.94.105 (151.33.xx.xx), similar as registered user:PIO, that has very similar pattern of writing and language (un)culture.
Thanks for the attention. Sincerely, Kubura 20:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah so LEO is back eh? I'll have a looksee in a bit.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sengunthar article version protected

Hi Isotope,

I am wondering why you did not edit protect when I requested you to and waited until Casper21 reverted all my edits even though he has wrongly claimed that he has included my valid references? Are you supporting his point of view? I'd like my version of the article to be locked.

All are valid references and Casper21 has totally removed all of the references.

Saedirof 22:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Saedirof (talk · contribs) is lying blatantly. He has in fact removed valid academic citations and has just weaved a lot of lies and stories ino the article. Moreover quoting random websites as references is against Wiki Policy and outrageous. Very soon he'll start creating blogs and then include that as a reference to push his POV. This is totally unacceptable. Moreover he just keeps harassing that everyone agree to his POV without any basis or logic and keeps claiming that the academic citations by historians and authors be replaced with his stories. Casper21 23:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If I protected the the wrong version, sorry, but that's the way it goes sometimes. My protection supports no point of view, I simply protected the version that was there when I got around to protecting it. If you have content issues I suggest you follow the dispute resolution process.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this will interest you and help you to change your mind on which version you protected. [25]

Saedirof 22:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point, it would be inappropriate for me to "switch versions" while the page is protected. Please put in an unprotection request at WP:RFPP and another admin an review the protection.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)