Oiws

collusion?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear Oiws: There is absolutely no "collusion" between me and anyone else on the Wikipedia. What "collusion" is there if people write to my Discussion Page and congratulate me on the work I am doing? And why do you think thanking me for checking false claims constitutes "collusion"? On what grounds do you refer to such writers as "anti-Jat people"?

Furthermore, if you look at the edits carefully you will discover that the person who last wrote thanking me (but did not sign his note) has also been removing a number of my own edits which I will now have to restore. Sincerely, John Hill 22:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is "Oiws" a sockpuppet? Administrators - would you please investigate?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Mr. "Owis", who claims to be a member of the Wikipedia's "Counter-Vanadlism Unit" and a "recent-changes patroller" has, apparently, made only two "contributions" to the Wikipedia - both to my Talk page.

The first was on 12th July this year when he warned me against "collusion" with "anti-Jat people" and said: "collusion is seen as a serious offence on wikipedia and is reportable." I strongly object to this completely groundless and insulting insinuation.

His next and final entry, so far, was on the 21st of July when he "suggests" that I work together with Mr. Burdak. He feels the "Wikipedia is lucky to have an expert like Mr Burdak on the Jat people." He then adds: "I feel you have have work with Mr Burdak rather than against him, I had a look back many months ago when you two were working together and I thought you two made a pretty good team. It would be a shame too let it ruin it - so please make a fresh start and work with Mr Burdak - this is the best way to improve things."

What "Owis" ignores is the fact that I have tried very hard for over a year to work with Mr. Burdak to improve this page, with very little success and regular abuse for my efforts. In that time Mr. Burdak has repeatedly been shown to distort history, to insert false and even non-existent references and to stoop to spreading outrageous lies accusing me of racial and religious prejudice. He was asked to apologise for these outright and baseless lies - but he never has. These facts are clearly recorded on the Jat people Talk Page and in the archives.

Mr. Burdak may well have considerable knowledge about Jat people but this knowledge is wasted as he has regularly demonstrated an appalling ignorance of how to assess historical evidence, and many times has been exposed as distorting evidence (and even inventing it) to support his own biased, vainglorious, romantic and, basically, racist view of Jat history.

I respectfully ask the Administrators to investigate "Owis" to determine if he is really a "sockpuppet" for someone else and, furthermore, to consider banning Mr. Burdak from these pages for abusing the trust of its readers and bringing both Jats and the Wikipedia into disrepute. Sincerely, John Hill 23:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic