User talk:Robdurbar/Archive 4

Incognito (identity)

I notice that you have not done anything at all with regard to all of the links that went to this particular article, when you decided to delete it. The reason why I set up a page was because all links to incognito were being directed to the music band of that name — including links which were obviously regarding concealed identity. When I created the page, it took a considerable and careful effort to ensure that the links to the indentity page, and to the music band page, would go to the appropriate pages.

The problem now arises that all of the links to concealed identities now go nowhere. Could you please fix things up again so that the links which you discarded (along with your deletion of the article), will again be okay. Thank you. Figaro 00:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have just recreated the page, so that the links will have somewhere to go again. But you do not have to worry yourself about having to delete the page again - the page is now a 'REDIRECT' page (something which you could have done - instead of just deleting the page). Could you please check for links to a page before deleting it in future. Figaro 07:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was absolutely essential for me to recreate the page, as the page was necessary for me to correct the links on all of the pages which used to link to the Incognito (identity) article. Recreating the page was the only way in which I could know which articles needed editing to fix up the links, because it was the sole area where the links to the article were listed.

As I have now completed the task of redirecting all of the links to the correct page, the Incognito (identity) page can now be deleted again as it is no longer required. Figaro 12:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

about last block

Hi Robdurbar, that ip is used only by him at least since 22:10, May 15, 2006, and all edits seem to be from same person. He'll probably come back with other ips. Cheers --Ugur Basak 08:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

He eventually came back with the name User:194.171.121.23. What can we do?--Ugur Basak 09:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

At least we can say he has used this ip before on September 29. As far as i know, as listed on 3RR page, his ips are 82.168.59.236-82.92.94.108 and 194.171.121.23-194.171.121.31. First two was used for long term by him. But 194.171.121.xx seeems to be new. Actually long term ip blocks are not good as you say. We've a chance, he everytime edits with same patterns, just reverting carelessly removing interwikis, notes etc. While i was writing this message, i checked Galatasaray article for last time and i see it's vandalised once more with similar ip [1] (User:194.171.121.15). --Ugur Basak 10:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Robdurbar, check history part of Galatasaray. That ip is out of control 194.171.121.xx(27,23,15). For a few months that article only edited as revert-wars. --Ugur Basak 08:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

He already reverted after your last revert. I don't think that he wants to contribute positively to this project and articles. Anyway thanks for your interest and help. Actually i don't know semi-protected articles like G.W. Bush etc., but maybe for a limited time period helps him to give-up. I'll try to post, start a case what i can do. If you want to comment after i started the case, i'll drop a message here. I really want to improve that page but it's difficult at least for now. Btw he has been working interwikily, at least vandalising turkish article of Galatasaray, removing coaches part:) --Ugur Basak 09:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Robdurbar, thanks for your helps but this thing is really out of control:( I started a case on here and here ,. Your comments as a sysop will be appreciated. Cheers --Ugur Basak 21:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Mylo Liverpool John Moores University Hall Road Rangers F.C. Swanley Furness F.C. Liskeard Athletic F.C. Centre 200 Steve Pemberton Saltash United F.C. Highworth Town F.C. England national amateur football team Ottawa Civic Centre Darlington Railway Athletic F.C. Ushaw College Carlos Alberto Tow Law Town F.C. Federation of Old Cornwall Societies Colisée de Rimouski Quinton Fortune K.C. Irving Regional Centre

Cleanup History of the Isle of Man Economic history of Britain Sculpture of the United States Merge First League of Serbia and Montenegro The Twelfth National holiday Add Sources General Certificate of Secondary Education Fulbourn Institute F.C. Carterton Town F.C. Wikify Counter-terrorism Plastic shopping bag Louis le Brocquy Expand Entrust King's College London History of Shropshire

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Chadbryant

Hey, I am having severe problems with this user. He makes up his own rules and says he is following wikipedia guidelines. For example, on the Triple H article, there was one free use image, and two fair use images. He never deleted them. But now all of the sudden he says its an excessive use of fair-use pics just because there is one free use image in there, and deletes them. He breaks the 3RR all the time but makes dumb excuses and gets out of it every time. He has been blocked for the 3RR before, 6 times. And has also been blocked for repeated violations of NPA/CIVIL. And now he is causing problems with me. And has in the past before, which cause me to leave. So, if you could please do something besides giving him a warning, it would be appreciated. Thanks. --Mikedk9109 22:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks Rob! --Mikedk9109 22:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, chad is up to it again. He keeps deleting that image. He says they should be used sparingly. And he says the Triple H article isn't a photo Gallery. It has 2 pictures! Its a rather long article and needs more than just one picture. So, can't you do something about this? Thanks. Here is the link where he deleted it again: 1

Re: El Gringo

Whether he removes the comment or not, the fact that he was warned still stands, so I don't really concern myself with people removing warnings too much.--Konst.able 04:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The warning was a good 10 days ago, I don't think blocking him for removing it now will accomplish anything except maybe aggravate him more. The reason why I had that note is that generally removing a warning straight away shows me a great deal about lack of good faith. But El Gringo has taken a long break already and hasn't quite gone back to his old behaviour.--Konst.able 07:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The redemption code

Rob, I do really believe that all editors have a lot of good faith towards WP. I also know that relentlessly pursuing an editor is something that spoils WP. These warnings are often from individuals and have a POV element in themselves. What often happens in WP, editors that are hounded often come back with a newer personality, and very often more cunning and colder than before. That's my 2 and 6 worth of observation. MelForbes 16:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

and again

Hi Robdurbar, [2] once more sock evading on Galatasary article:) He came back with a new user name and revert the article again. --Ugur Basak 20:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User: El Gringo

Hi Robdurbar. I was wondering what was happening about the whole El Gringo situation. Of course, I don't object to any of his opinions, but I do object to the fact that they are constantly expressed in a violent, agressive and hate-filled manner that is intrinsically offensive. He uses swearwords a lot, as well as personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. See the British Empire talk pages for a few examples of this within the last 24 hours. I would be very grateful if you could do something about this, because it has been going on for many months now. Thanks. --Stonemad GB 22:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

El Gringo

I've glanced at this page and others intermittently and, having just viewed your comment dated 11.10.06 on Mel's page, I'd like to make some points:

1. The reason I have to emphasise the imperial nature of these discussions on nomenclature is precisely because they are consequences of British imperial claims to Ireland. They are products of British mythmaking, of British nationalist needs at a point in British history. No more, and no less. I find it profoundly insulting for others to deny the political fundamentals in the name's development and usage.

2. The reason why I specify the rightwing nature of certain posters who support their usage as applied to Ireland is because to say that holding those views was simply a product of their Britishness would display national prejudice, which I'm not silly enough to bother with. Consequently, the only way to convey my belief that using these terms is the product of a British nationalist upbringing rather than a British one is to point out this nationalist basis of certain editors' views. The adjective nationalist modifies the noun British. It is not to equate British with nationalist, and on this I have pointed out frequently that most, if not all, British media organisations refuse to use the term British Isles in their weather forecasts, for instance. That is an example of liberal Britain, of the contrast. As such, it would be dishonest to refer to the arguments made in defence of the use "British Isles" as being simply a British trait- that would be a national prejudice. I do have an unashamedly firm prejudice against editors trying to tell me where I live and what my identity is, especially when their views express the cultural and political values of the state which has a record of the same for many centuries. Again, to use Edward Said's highly perceptive observation in Orientalism: colonial powers always seek to control the representation of the native to the world. I'm not having it, and I haven't been brought up to tolerate that sort of cultural arrogance. So, yes, I do have a clearly defined intolerance regarding the thankfully decreasing amount of persons in Ireland's neighbouring island who feel they must impose their nationalist myths and their nationalist narratives upon Ireland. I especially object to their notion that their terms for Ireland are not based on the nationalist myths and needs of the British state at a point in her history. Whether they do this consciously or not is another matter.

3. On this latter point, the usage of the term, however well-intentioned, is a product entirely of the political situation. I do not for a minute doubt your good intention, and I don't believe that I have accused you personally of having views in the 'imperialist' category. However, and this is a key point, because one subconsciously uses a word with very definite imperialist connotations does not mean that the imperialist meaning is obliterated. To my mind there is no contradiction between assuming somebody's good faith, and continuing to believe the usage of the term to include Ireland is an imperialist usage. As you yourself acknowledged, it is unsurprising that the British Isles page developed political tentacles because it was written by editors who 'could not escape their own background entirely'. In this context editors' denying the political nature of the term are exposing the political nature of the term through, at best, subconsciously reflecting their society's prejudices in the use of the term. At worst, editors are denying the political nature, and then strengthening it by imposing their very blatant unionist political views subscribing to what is rougly paraphrased as "We are all British and it's only Irish nationalism which is engaged in mythmaking on this issue". This is the context of my continuous affirmation that use of the term British Isles is a product of British imperialist claims, of British state mythmaking, regarding Ireland.

4. The principal wikipedians engaged in throwing Ireland into a British context do have solid political views. User:Gsd2000 in particular has an astounding record on this front; first, in equating Britain with the United Kingdom on the latter's page despite the Act of Union 1800 itself, which makes a well-known distinction between both in the very name of the UK state. This was repeated again on the Talk:Britain page. The same political desire to take Ireland out of colonial parameters and place it within British nationalist parameters is now being repeated on Talk:British Empire where, breathtakingly, Ireland is now not considered an "overseas colony". A look at his contributions shows he is engaged in the same project elsewhere on wikipedia, usually followed by the invariably obnoxious comment condemning other posters for their "pov". It would be naïve to assume good faith in the case of that particular poster, for instance.

5. I'll take a break from wikipedia for a while. But I will not apologise for opposing those who seek to impose their state's nationalist terminology and contextualisation upon Ireland, and the conceit of apoliticism which ceaselessly accompanies their efforts in this regard. Those days are over, and it's well past the time that the persons concerned developed a new vocabulary for the changed times, just as every society does in each generation. As sincere as I am about all that, I want to be equally sincere in saying that you, by the way, are a decent and open-minded wikipedian. Beir bua. El Gringo 18:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted CSD R3s

I don't know that I agree with your recent deletions of the quoted article titles recently tagged as {{db-redirtypo}}. Redirects are cheap, after all, and it's not only plausible for a person to search with quotes around the title, it's likely. (Just look at how many articles get moved after creation because they start out with quotes.) I'm not sure the deletions are worth restoring, but it's something you might want to think about. Cheers. -- Merope ^Talk 17:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's totally a pain, but I'm working on it. I've asked the user to stop tagging the articles. -- Merope ^Talk 17:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, are you cool with my restoring the R3s? I don't want to wheel war over it (it's really not a big deal), but I'm happy to restore them. (Plus, it's easy to restore them without restoring the db tag.) -- Merope ^Talk 17:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Aluminium

Thanks for the note - I've given you the benefit of the doubt! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 07:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Carnatic Music Page

Thanks for protecting the page. I have provided my responses (about 3-4 for now). I think someone has to take a look and let us know how this consensus building will happen. I think it may be necessary to keep it protected for a considerable time. I'm planning to leave a similar message in User:Sundar's page as well. --Aadal 23:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you or User:Sundar or some other admin come and check what is going on in the Carnatic music page? I've provided ample material. User:Skris is not using appropriate language and does not properly engage in discussing the isses, in my view. I believe some admin should step in and advise us.--Aadal 18:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please see Talk:Carnatic_music#Nothing_else_to_say.3F and do what you deem fit. Thanks. -- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 09:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please lock the carnatic music article again since the other side seems to be least interested in preventing another edit war. Sorry to put you through this chore.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 08:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rob, thanks for your suggestion, I agree with that, but its not me alone who is involved with the other fellow (Aadal). Even if I dont revert User:Aadal's edits pending discussions, there is every chance someone else (who may not listen to my pleas) will do it very soon. I think an unproductive edit war can be prevented by protecting the page now rather than make it look ugly again. However, I leave it to your discretion, I wont be participating in an edit war though. Thanks for all the help.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 09:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Rest and service areas

I did not see your reason for not accepting my proposals for deletion. I don't see any importance in those rest and service areas in Malaysia. They are just stops along highways where there are a few stores and toilets. Can you give me your explanation. Besides, I'm from Malaysia and I've seen them and used them myself.Wai Hong 16:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you recommend articles about specific rest areas? I have found articles about the various types of rest areas but not specific rest areas such as those written by User:Aiman abMajid.Wai Hong 16:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting vandalism of my user page.

Small minds are easily entertained. Prometheus^-X303- 12:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

UFWC

As you have been a major contributor, I was wondering what you think of what I've been doing at List of winners of Unofficial Football World Championships. Kevin McE 13:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Deletion, Delilah Knotty (Fetish Model)

October 28, 2006: Robdurbar, I would like to discuss with you and contest your recent deletion of the article listed above without having to request a review of your decision. I believe this page about Delilah Knotty was a description of a transgendered fetish model and the recent work produced by this model. This page was in-fact produced in similar fashion of several other articles with links to several supporting articles of similar theme within Wikipedia. Specifically, the article described a history of the evolution of the transfetish modeling and/art within the crossdressing community. This article has been a thought-provoking piece, which has garnered some support to how and why transfetish is coming to be. I believe this is a useful and complete article and has stood the test of being authentic and accepted by the duration of it’s printing on Wikipedia. Can you please review this in more detail so the article can be restructured for what you feel as more appropriate without summary deletion again? Author - Delilah Knotty

Deleted images (invalid fair use)

Many thanks for working your way methodically through that list earlier today. Please could you look at just a few that were missed somehow (maybe I forgot to include them).

• Image:Ej kj yoko-gake 72701-72738 73134-73181.gif
• Image:Ef km uchi-mata 71424-71620.gif
• Image:Ef km kata-juji-jime 77556-77667 77839-78000.gif

Thanks, Arbitrary username 14:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that. Oops, I'd forgotten about the 'not a bot' notice on my talk page! Arbitrary username 14:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

English national team

Why have a redundant section. If you're going to argue about going to WikiProject Football, then check there manual of style for national teams. There's no sectioon regarding recent call ups or even current squads for that matter. Kingjeff 17:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is there is no need for this section. You should check redundancy. is the use of duplicative, unnecessary or useless wording. In this case it duplicative, unnecessary and useless. Kingjeff 17:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There might not be any edits anytime soon. Kingjeff 17:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Block

Please note, I just block conflicted you on User talk:208.39.164.129, I've extended the block to 1 fortnight as this has been a persistant problem account. I've blocked for anon only. If you disagree with this and want to go back to this only being a 1 hour block, I won't cry wheeling. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 19:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocking User:Nielswik .

Those reverts were NOT within 24 hours. He had only 3 revert in 24 hours. Hence he has not violated any rule. It is not good to ban him :( --- ابراهيم 12:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For my own peace of spirit: the reason that I listed that as a revert was due to the previous edit where he made the same addition (subsequently removed by another user). But in any event this was a very complicated case. I just wish people would rely a little more on discussion... Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It was wrong heading which I have corrected now. I have replied on 3RR page. --- ابراهيم

Daksh

Rob, it seems you've deleted the two articles on "Daksh", one about IBM's Indian BPO arm, and the other about the technical festival of SASTRA University, in India. The history page calls the "Daksh" page an advert.

I wrote the Daksh technical festival page, and i deliberately and carefully worded it to avoid making it sound like an advertisement. Also, most other Indian colleges have wikipedia pages for their technical festivals, and these seem to be running without any objections from admins, so I dont see the point in deleting this one alone. Admittedly, there was no citation there. The event website hasn't yet been launched, so I can't cross-reference to it for some time, but I will do it once that site is up.

As for the BPO arm, I had nothing to do with the article, but I don't think that seemed like advertising either. I'm not fighting for it, but I definitely didn't see what was wrong with it.

Please get back to me asap, as I'd like to put the page back with any necessary corrections.Raghuvansh_r

The article definitely isn't speculative, but i get what you're saying about the lack of sources. A technical Festival is something which I believe is peculiar to Indian college culture; it consists of various competitions, rather like a Culfest, but in a technical festival, the events tend to be oriented towards the academic side; I'll be sure to put this on the Daksh page. Other technical festivals (for which you wanted links) include Pragyan, Techfest, Engineer (Part of the NITK page - link provided to give you an idea of what a technical festival is), Kshitij etc. These are just some of the prominent technical festivals that appear on wikipedia; Will ensure that the Daksh page, when I do put it up, has proper links. Raghuvansh_r

Sfrandzi

Hi!

I'm Wulfson, sys-op in Russian Wikipedia. I see that you indefinitely blocked User:Sfrandzi who is also active in RuWP - could you please explain the grounds for this? The thing is that I am rather closely cooperating with him in RuWP on various issues related to modern history of Near East and Southern Caucasus - from Iraq and Iran to Azerbaijan, Armenia, North Karabakh, etc. The block log says he is a sockpuppet - could you please be more specific? In Russian WP, User:Sfrandzi showed himself as very competent and knowledgeable, though maybe somewhat biased in the Armenian-Azerbaijani issue - but I do not believe it may be sound grounds for an indefinite block. When I was around, at least, we managed to get things straight. It would be most regretful to lose a valuable input. If you might drop me a line at ru:User:Wulfson, I would be glad to discuss this matter.

Regards, Wulfson 20:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

I just talked to User:Sfrandzi in his Russian Discussion page (ru:Участник:Павел Шехтман). He promised he would try to show a more cooperative attitude - though he does not really think he will do much editing in enWiki. He says he actually does not know English too well (maybe this is why he could not modify his edits or try and find any compromise version) but he simply could not stand what he thought was a gross misrepresentation of events as he knows them. As I said, he has a rather pro-Armenian bias, which may be related to his scientific interests and affiliation (in RuWiki, he mostly specializes in history of Near East and South Caucasus, as well as history of the USSR). I have confidence in what he says, so I would like to ask you to unblock him. If there is any formal procedure involved, please let me know, and I will do what is required.

Regards, Wulfson 19:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Unblock and further comment on User talk:JamesAVD

I thought your refusal to unblock James very reasonable, but I also thought your further comment to the user was awesome. We all have to forgive each others' mistakes and what you wrote showed real insight and humanity. I also agree with the need to put to bed the issue of removing warnings. We need to restate that warnings are just that, not badges of shame, in my opinion.

All in all, I think we have treated James very fairly and kindly. I only became aware of him when I saw he had removed the EU succession info from an article on my watchlist, then saw he was doing the same thing wholesale without any consensus or discussion (that I could see), and got browbeaten when I asked him about it. Anyway, sorry to gush on, but I wanted to comment. --Guinnog 18:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

CSD G11

Rob, I'm a bit perplexed by your speedying SK Telecom Open as an advert; the promotional tendencies of the article notwithstanding, a golf tournament contested on the professional Asian Tour is, I'd suggest, presumptively notable, and one to have been contested, quite prominently, by Michelle Wie, inter al., is likely necessarily notable. I don't recall myself to have edited the article, but I saw the redlink at Portal:Golf/News and thought I ought to drop you a line. I think undeletion to be in order, but I understand that, in view of the interest now accorded G11, you might continue to think the speedying to be appropriate, such that a DRV, in order that the community might weigh in, might be the best pursuit. If there is something I'm missing here (it's eminently possible there is something; I am frequently dense) that would suggest deletion of the article as serving principally or exclusively as advertisement to have been advised/necessary, I'd much appreciate your letting me know.  :) Joe 05:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I realize that I'm quibbling over a three-sentence article and that it is probable that I ought simply to recreate the article, but insofar as I'm more a PII than an IAR guy and insofar as I think your understanding of G11 to be one for which a consensus does not exist (in the first instance, SK Telecom appears to be notable per WP:CORP and inasmuch as we've an article apropos of the company, such that a one-sentence note as to the nature of a title sponsor is not at all inappropriate (consistent, e.g., with most of the titled events enumerated, inter al., at Men's Tennis - 2006 Season). G11 ought only to be employed where a page exists exclusively to promote a company and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic; here, the excision of SK telecom [sic] is part of a bigger branch of technology well known in South Korea; the retention of the {{wikify}} and {{uncategorized}} tags; and the addition of {{Golf-stub}} should suffice to render the article encyclopedic. I will, then, pursue a DRV, and I hope you'll impute neither malign motive nor WP:POINT to my DRV; I think your application of G11 here to be quite wrong, and I think it important the community weigh in in order that we might better understand for what application of G11 a consensus exists. I do, though, appreciate most sincerely your reasoned reply, and I'll be sure to drop by once more with a specific note once I've listed the article. Joe 19:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks once more for your reply to my message. I readily concede that this is probably as process-oriented a DRV as one might ever see, but I think it exceedingly important that we exercise caution when applying speedy deletion criteria, especially, IMHO, G11, the uses of which have, in several instances (e.g., the "cookie debacle"), been altogether inconsistent and inappropriate. In any event, I suppose, in the interests of formality, I ought to leave this: An editor has asked for a deletion review of SK Telecom Open. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Cordially, Joe 21:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

EU maps

I believe the new maps have been introduced without reaching a clear consensus. Personally I find them very POVish and also less clear geographically (i.e. Spain new map does not even show the Canary Islands, nor clearly transmits the idea of its location as nexus in between to continents, etc). I think a proper discussion should take place on whether it is acceptable to use these new non-standard maps. Obviously, I have no intention whatsoever to engage on any revert campaign or edit wars, but I find unacceptable that an important change like this has been introduced by the back door. Your thoughts? Asterion^talk 18:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Revolution Music Canada

Regarding your deletion of the page for Revolution Music Canada with the explanation that it was a repost of deleted material, IT WAS NOT A REPEAT. We spent the last year refining those facts so that they would fit into Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion as an indie record label, including having national releases, being featured internationally, having radio airplay and being featured in nationally published magazines. I feel your deletion was a form of Wikipedia vandalism. Rather than reading the page to see that it wasn't a repeat and was very valid, you chose to delete it without informing yourself of the content. I feel this is an abuse of your privledge. Please repost it or I will. Drdphd 11:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

AniZone

Hi,

You deleted the article AniZone citing the reason that User:AltUser closed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anizone. User:Patstuart then reverted it because User:AltUser was blocked. User:Konstable was operating the account (and clearly marked it as such) and explains his reasons on the user page. So I'm not sure if the close should be reverted, or the article should be undeleted to gather more consensus. ColourBurst 16:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would mind if you closed it yourself; it's more than 5 days; once you discount non-arguments there's a clear consensus. ColourBurst 16:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Rare weapons In Neocron

Regarding your deletion of the page "Rare Weapons In Neocron" under A1. This article bears context within the neocron comunity for those interested in the background story of the varius unique weapons of the game. These varius unique weapons are refered to within other wikipedia articles with no further information available and i feel that your deletion bear little merrit beacouse of this. --Taurmin 16:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The introductory text whas a rough outline as this article whas still a work in progress. It whas only created an hour ago so it should at the least have crosed your mind that this might not be a finished article. Even at the moment of its deletion i whas preparing to finish the introduction for the article. I would be glad if you could restor it so that i can finish it up. --Taurmin 16:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The bulk of the article whas completed and it whas merely missing som finishing touches. Instantly deleting an article of this size simply beacouse i fail to state what an mmo is is meager grounds at best. Now could you kindly put this back where you found it so that the information can become acesible to the Neocron Cumunity again. --Taurmin 17:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Test Drive Unlimited

Edits by User:JimmyJoeBobby that were reverted were instances of blatant vandalism. I did revert edits by User:Sawblade05, but these were because of an error on my part, as I accidentally reverted Sawblade05's attempts to fix vandalism. Now as I understand it, 3RR violations exclude attempts to fix blatant vandalism, which many of these reverts were. Since 3RR complaints lead to preventative, not punitive, blocks, I appreciate your discretion in withholding blocks in this muddled instance. However I can assure you that reverts to Test Drive Unlimited were applied properly, if liberally, and there is not a burning content dispute that might force any parties to continually revert in a disruptive manner. Thanks for your time ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

JimmyJoeBobby's edits added continually exaggerated made-up specs ("Pentium 5 (prototype version - please steal if you don't have this yet) - 10Ghz") and randomly changed other documented information. What makes these edits troubling is that they are a form of sneaky vandalism - on the surface they may appear to be actual good faith contributions. It was only after observing a pattern of these edits that I noticed he was simply making them up. The edit summaries I used were less than helpful in explaining the reasons for reversion, I'll try to be more explicit in the future. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Blank Maps

Looking at your world map of winners of the Unofficial Football World Championship, could you explain how I might genearate a similar one for the Unofficial Rugby Union World Championships? Thanks Alanmjohnson

• Thanks for your help. A

England and Wikiproject England

Hi, I've left a few comments at Talk:England.

I'm considering founding a Wikiproject England like that of Scotland's, and I've noticed your editting pattern and thought you may be interested.

Hope you can help, Jhamez84 13:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

2006 in British Music

Hi there...

I got the sales figures from Music Week magazine - maybe a link could be added at the bottom of each chart. Steveweiser 17:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Rob. I wanted to thank you with flowers (well, flower) for taking the time to participate in my RfA, which was successful. I'm very grateful for your supportive comment. I assure you I'll continue to serve the project to the very best of my ability and strive to use the admin tools in a wise and fair manner. Please do let me know if I can be of assistance and especially if you spot me making an error in future. Many thanks once again. Yours, Rockpocket 07:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Andy M - impersonation

This user seems to be impersonating me. User:Andy M. I created my own in 2005. This Andy M created in 2006. -- A. Wang ^{(talk/contrb.)} 15:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Aminz

oh. no--Aminz 12:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Robdurbar.

Since the 3rr policy says it does not apply to correcting simple vandalism, I was wondering if removing big chunks of texts which are encyclopedic is simple vandalims, isn't it? --Aminz 12:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(response extended at User talk:Aminz)Well sometimes, but not when part of a wider content dispute. If in doubt, don't revert. Anyway, your reverts were not re-instating large chunks of text. --Robdurbar 12:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Robdurbar, put yourself in my shoes, you do lots of research and write something, then a persistent editor comes and removes it without any reason. Can you remain silent? --Aminz 12:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, could you please let me know if an editor doesn't agree with you that this text-book [3] used in UC Berkeley, published by a famous press is unreliable, just because the area of expertise of the writer is not Islam, what would you do. That is a textbook. They do not show any source contradicting this source. --Aminz 12:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There are three or four editors who are always making it feel as everybody is against me. --Aminz 12:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

THat Budinger textbook maybe for Aminz own class[4] so WP:COI.

If he has four editors 'making it feel as everybody is against' him maybe thats saying something. Everyone feeling his edits arent at all neutral and hes reverting all the time with ignoring what people are saying in the discussing.

Course theres always tomorrow. Now today. And hes unblocked. So please Aminz dont restart the edit warring instead talk and see where we can all agree on the consensus.Opiner 12:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course there are a couple of other users agreeing with me, four by four ; or three by four I believe(if you don't again ask other people with particular edit background to come and revert). --Aminz 12:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Robdurbar, what if someone asks others to come and revert for him. This is just gaming the system, isn't it? I can show you the diffs. --Aminz 12:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:Aminz for a more general response on the policy and practices of this situation. If you want to provide me with some diffs of behvaiour that you think breaks policy, then I will happily look at them; alternatively you could make a report at the administrator's noticeboard. Bare in mind the quotes of policy I provided at your talk page.

Opiner; I'm not quite sure I understand your comments about the textbook? Are you saying that Aminz is somehow connected to this book? Bare in mind that WP:COI says 'You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's'. As for the issue of the text not being by a scholar in Muhammad - well unless it completely contradicts something else said by the experts, or has been criticised by a number of Muhammad scholars, then I don't see the problem in that. --Robdurbar 14:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rob, I don't understand why Aminz got unblocked. He clearly and repeatedly violated 3RR. That he obviously doesn't understand the definition of vandalism is no excuse for him to do that. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Under the circumstances I am content. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Robdurbar, thanks for your comments. User:Opiner asked others to come in (with the pretext that editor Nielswik was informed by me, which is not true, I haven't asked Nielswik to join in) [5], [6], [7] (please note the compliment here), [8], [9] (I consider User:Patstuart a good editor with whom I have had some disagreement. ). Infact user:Nielswik has been in contact with him ([10]), he might have noticed about the page from Opiner's talk page. I haven't had any, even one, correspondance with User:Nielswik. We have never ever edited the same articles. How can I possibly ask him to join in?

But I am kind of happy now since Admin User:Grenavitar has accepted my request of joining in the discussion. I am sure he will solve the longstanding dispute of whether we can use a university text-book in wikipedia. Cheers, (And BTW, thanks for your lengthy response on my talk page)--Aminz 19:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Template: Horror Icons

I was checking the "unprotection" request I made for this template and it said that you granted the request. When I went to check the template it was still under full protection, and you granted the request 4 days ago. Does it take that long to go through or did it just not get unprotected? Bignole 15:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, that's cool. Thanks. Bignole 15:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please unprotect Foreign Rel. of Western Sahara

Rob, it looks like user Koavf has been blocked on indef. basis. Please can you unprotect the page? Thanks - wikima 15:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Rob, thanks for the swift reaction, much appreciated - wikima 16:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)

I re-protected this as the amount of anon vandals was getting out of hand. There were over 250 edits to the page in the time since your unprotection, most were vandalism by anons and the subsequent reverting of vandalism. I am sorry for re-protecting, and if you disagree in any way, just unprotect. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Opiner

Hi Robdurbar,

User:Opiner now says that the book:" Jonathan M. Bloom, Sheila S. Blair (1974). Islam: A Thousand Years of Faith and Power. Yale University Press."

written by Jonathan M. Bloom, Sheila S. Blair Professors of Islamic and Asian Art at Harvard University could not be used since [11].

The previous issue has not been solved yet (the UCB textbook). While many editors have agreed with its reliability, user:Opiner refuses to do so.

Would you please let me know what should I do?

Thanks --Aminz 20:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

p.s. please note that I have not engaged in any revert war [12] though I should have naturally reacted to Opiner's removal of sourced material or changing their meaning (please see this [13] ) --Aminz 20:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much Robdurbar. --Aminz 22:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Cant say about geography but to put it in reverse the physicist definitely shouldnt cite an side observation about quantum mechanics in a book by the geographer to help prove their theory! If you go on in academics youll realize that even half the people in the actual field dont know what theyre saying! People outside it are just repeating what they hear from somewhere else. The reviewers arent in that field so cant catch the mistakes. Thats why Reliable Sources guideline is saying 'Prefer sources with relevant doctoral degrees or published expertise in the field they are discussing.'Opiner 00:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We have several other sources mentioned in the article which agree with that source. John Esposito, Annemarie Schimmel and many other sources which I haven't included in the article but have enountered with during my research. Opiner doesn't show a source which contradicts what that source says. It is peer reviewed and published by a university press and the authors are professors at Harvard university. --Aminz 01:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Robdurbar, Opiner still refuses to accept that the book Islam: A Thousand Years of Faith and Power is reliable [14]. Another admin previously also told him that the UCB text-book is reliable unless a source contradicing it is found (Admin User:FayssalF said "Are there any other sources apart of Budinger, Botzler and Armstrong? If yes compare them and decide who is more notable. If not Budinger, Botzler and Armstrong are to stay." ). But he refused to accept and engaged in edit warring as I did, but unfortunately I was the one who passed 3rr. I can not really do more than requesting another admin to comment on the reliability of this source. Would you please let me know what should I do? --Aminz 06:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Robdurbar, The Encyclopedia of world history states that Muhammad preached against social evils of his day and I have written it as "Muhammad preached against what he saw as the social evils of his day, Encyclopedia of world history states." attributed to the source. Opiner changes it to "Muhammad preached against what he saw as the social evils of his day, Encyclopedia of world history states" but this is not what the source says. He defends his edit by arguing that the Encyclopedia of world history doesn't have degree in good vs. evil studies!! [15]. I don't know really how to response... --Aminz 06:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, A friend of Opiner whom per his request has joined and reverts to his version, "Arrow740", said that Prophet Muhammad "had a mission as a egomaniacal anti-Semite with an unhealthy lust for booty." Since Admin User:Durova had previously warned him before for uncivility [16], I posted a comment on her talk page [17]. --Aminz 06:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In Arrow740's case, it is also painful to discuss with the user (Arrow740) who calls Academic scholars like Patricia Crone and Michael Sells as silly scholars and Encyclopedia of world history(Oxford University Press) as a Pro-Islam source. --Aminz 06:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In context I think the appropriate double entendre to be topical. Also it says a lot about Aminz that he capitalized Academic. Arrow740 09:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Prof. Carl Ernst, had previously posted a page on a webpage of his course, in which he said that Spencer is an Islamophobe and that he publishes his books through right-wing publications, not university presses. That he is a hired polemic and his books should be distinguished from real academic work. User:Durova should have seen that page. It is no longer available. Ernst also gave accounts of how much money the right-wing publications have recieved and through which channels. --Aminz 09:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at his two most famous books now. One is published by Regnery, a 60 year old subsidiary of Eagle Publishing, and the other is published by Encounter books, which seems to publish lots of reasonable authors like Spencer, but seems pretty prominent. He is also published by Prometheus. He's a best selling author and an excellent scholar. If he is a hired polemic so is Carl Ernst. You can't expect the ivory tower to look fondly at someone who eschewed getting a PhD from it and isn't an apologist for Islam. Anyway the Islamic Studies departments at major universities are left-wing groups, so this is the pot calling the kettle black. Arrow740 09:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Carl Ernst says that the Regnery Publishing is "promoted and supported by right-wing organizations, who are perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice." --Aminz 10:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Who cares what he says. He's just bitter because Spencer is so much more influential than him. Arrow740 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made a fairly detailed response to all this at Talk:Reforms under Islam (610-661). To deal with the above more directly - academics disagree with each other. There is no such thing as a 'truth' - (I'm a fan of poststructuralism) - and both are probably right. That doesn't mean we can't use them both in a neutral article. --Robdurbar 09:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Robdurbar, please please, hold on. Let's ask the view of User:Durova as well. People like Spencer are never quoted in real academic circles. They write books for public use. Ernst says that their books do not pass the blind peer review process practiced by university presses, so they publish it through a different channel. Ernst says that Spencer has no academic degree in Islamic studies whatsoever. His MSc degree was in early Christianity. --Aminz 10:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, to be honest with you, I know nothing about this topic and can only trust what people say. But I'm not sure what you're defining as 'real academic circles' here. If his opinion is truly minor and off the mark, then other users will know this and be able to back you up. As for your comment about his degree... isn't that a little similar to what Opiner said earlier ;) --Robdurbar 10:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Rob, no my point was misunderstood. He doesn't have a degree and he doesn't publish in university presses. My sources were all published by university presses, or presses that specifically publish academic sources. --Aminz 10:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We're not using him in this article. He didn't want a PhD from a doofus like Ernst. Arrow740 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Rob, there are some presses that only publish academic works. Please. One of the book I was refering was a Text Book. The other one was published by a famous press and by two academics at Harvard University. Spencer doesn't have an academic position and publishes in right-wing publications, not academic ones. --Aminz 10:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

An engineering textbook. Arrow740 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Rob, please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova#Sorry_for_stopping_by_again . I am extremely offended. He accuses prophet Muhammad as an antisemitic. please see the difference. Here is what real academic scholars believe:

"There is nothing in medieval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism", Claude Cahen, a distinguished Islamic historian states by comparing medieval Christendom and medieval Islam. Bernard Lewis states that "In Islamic society hostility to the Jew is non-theological. It is not related to any specific Islamic doctrine, nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic sacred history."

Rob, I can not see this user offending my religion on no basis. Do you think I should bring this to ANI or wait for user:Durova? --Aminz 10:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck on your work. I am not using left-wing sources. There is no such thing. :( --Aminz 10:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Spencer issue is a straw man as no one has quoted him in the article we're discussing (lol). And neither right-wing nor left-wing is necessarily bad. Those two you quoted are wrong, see Ibn Warraq or Bat Ye'or. Muhammad was anti-semitic, if not in thought (though he was) then certainly in deed. Arrow740 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Rob, there is no *scholar* who is claiming so. please! okay. I am going to wait for user:Doruva. I'll ask Admin: User:SlimVirgin who is both a Jew and knowledgable about the history of Anti-Semitism to have a look at this. Rob, thanks for your helps anyways and good luck on your work. --Aminz 10:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Spencer issue is a straw man as no one has quoted him in the article we're discussing (lol). And neither right-wing nor left-wing is necessarily bad. Those two you quoted are wrong, see Ibn Warraq or Bat Ye'or. Muhammad was anti-semitic, if not in thought (though he was) then certainly in deed. Also you might benefit from learning the definition of "scholar." Arrow740 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Rob, please have a look at http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~khaleel/ another university professor (the important note section). Please also note the title of Spencer's books: e.g. "Muhammad, the founder of the most intolerant religion". --Aminz 22:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone really argue that Islam is not the most intolerant religion? Arrow740 22:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR issue

Rob, can you please explain why you didn't help me on the 3RR issue from a couple of days ago? I asked for help 5 times, and then you just blocked me without any disucssion or helping me correct things first. I have reviewed that complex issue, but at the time I needed some help and it was not a clear violation due to any edit war. It was complex and tricky. I asked for help from an administrator 5 times, told everyone I was editing in good faith, said it was not my intention to violate any rule, and asked for instruction to correct it, after I was explained what the violation was. I believe I was treated unfairly, and now I have that on my block log, which is what I was trying to avoid by asking for help. Kindly see the 3RR board and review. Why wasn't I provided time and help? Thanks.Kiyosaki 06:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but doesn't the rule as written make every single edit technically a revert, since every single edit involves changing the text, thereby resulting in "reverting" something somebody else did? That's what's difficult to get. Please explain. I mean, if I change the word "a" to "the" isn't that reverting the guy who wrote "a" in the first place? PS, now I'm paranoid to edit, thinking that any 4 edits of mine could be twisted by SlimVirgin to use against me. I don't want a repeat of what happened and I'm not confident at all he won't hesitate to use this issue against me.Kiyosaki 10:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

My good faith and sourced edits are being reverted in a war again (Israeli apartheid), can you kindly review in detail? Thanks.Kiyosaki 20:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Collegiate

Hi there, I'm curious - what are the other 3 collegiate universities in England apart from "Doxbridge"? thanks! Bwithh 20:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

UK's best selling album list

Hi

Can you check and reply to the comments I made on the List of best-selling albums (UK) discussion please (RE: Queen as #1 album)? Thank you Rimmers 21:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you send me that text please?

Hi Robdurbar, you'll remember our discussion about that short-lived article on the term 'Anglo-Celtic Isles'...I didn't get a copy of the text before it was taken down (disgracefully in my opinion) and wondered if you could, as an administrator, get hold of it and paste a copy on my talk page thingy. This would be appreciated. Thanks. Pconlon 03:08, 21 November 2006

Mediation

Hi Rob,

I have repented from edit-warring and am trying to solve things through discussion :) I requested for a mediation. Everybody except User:Opiner has agreed to join the mediation. However when I asked User:Opiner to agree with mediation, his reaction was [18], [19].

Now, what can I do?? --Aminz 10:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Opiner was the one who was disputing all the sources. --Aminz 10:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the edit-warring dispute was over the reliability of some sources per WP:RS and also usage of primary sources(which I believe shouldn't be done). Also, over how the prose should be. If Encyclopedia of religion says that: "Muhammad preached against the social evils of his day", should we write is as: "Muhammad preached against the social evils of his day, Encyclopedia of religion says" or "Muhammad preached against what he saw as the social evils of his day, Encyclopedia of religion says." As the user believe they should go ahead and NPOV the statements of the sources.

Regarding how the article could be NPOVed, I really have no clear idea. Since the word "reform" might be kind of inherently positive and this article will have a postive structure (like Critism of X articles which inevitably have a negative structure).

You are right. User:Opiner hasn't been around for a couple of days. I'll wait more :) --Aminz 21:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with almost all the points you raised. It is also true that the article contains more quotes and more attributed statements than most other aritcles on Wikipedia. But one can change the prose of the sentences without changing their meaning. Saying what Muhammad saw as evil might imply that the authors find something evil with which Muhammad didn't have any issue. But thanks for your comments. --Aminz 07:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Aska Village

Re this: I think I tagged it as an attack because 'baka' means 'stupid' in Japanese, AFAIK. But A7 would have been more appropriate. Thanks. riana_dzasta 16:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Doxbridge

Thanks for the message - not too sure why you are posting though, do you want to add something to an article? With regards the similarity, you would have to provide tangible evidence rather than just your own experience. As far as experience goes though, the fact that you're in a castle doesn't say that much seeing as though that castle was not expressly built for the university, but that the university moved into it relatively recently compared to Oxbridge, where the buildings have always been to do with the university. I think that's why town-gown relations can be strained in Durham sometimes, as the university is often seen as subsuming the culture of Durham for the university - trying to turn it into an 'Oxbridge' of the North by colonising the culture. But that's just my own opinion (which I wouldn't put forward as fact - just a theory that I would never let creep into my article edits!)! And I don't hate people at Durham either! I get the impression you're doing Geography. Are you? If so, me too. What year are you? I'm 3rd now. I use Durham University Library a fair amount when I'm back home, it's not quite Cambridge UL, but I'm appreciative nonetheless! Logica 00:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm more of a mixture of human and physical - doing 50% of each this year, but a human dissertation. Anyway - all our degrees are BAs, even in science subjects! Logica 23:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hi. I was wondering if you could help me out on the Bobby Sands article. I think it's biased. For example, it fails to mention he was a convicted terrorist in the opening section, yet states he was an "Irish Republican" who died on hunger strike, and was an MP. The external links all paint him in a positive way, too. And further, there are references to a "loyalist reaction", the evidence of which includes grafitti on a wall and an apparant song at a Glasgow Rangers football match. This has been removed before, but has been reverted. Is there some formal way we could get administrators to look at the article for bias? I know these articles are a minefield, but somebody's got to go into them sometime. Thanks again. Logica 02:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this - much appreciated. Logica 23:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Skyscrapers

Is a building notable just for being over 300m tall?

Irrelevant question, for two reasons:

1) Almost all of the articles, so-called, are empty of everything a few (VERY few) numbers obviously lifted from the skyscraperpage.com pages linked to. (Evidence? Well, for World Lamp King Museum, the ONLY Google hit I get, apart from one personal page, is from skyscraperpage.com. So that's where the information is coming from). Notability isn't an issue; emptiness is.

2) With maybe one exception NONE of the buildings have even been built yet, and in may cases don't appear to even started construction yet.

They're content-free crystal-ball speedy deletions, as far as I'm concerned. --Calton | Talk 15:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and when it comes to broadcasting transmitter towers, examine this, please. --Calton | Talk 15:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Twenty times zero is still zero, but if you want to waste the time, go right ahead. --Calton | Talk 15:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rob, you might want to comment on DRV. Thanks! [20] Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

removal of deletion review

You removed my deletion review of ZENN. [21] I was wondering why, did I not go through the motions correctly? RichMac (Talk) 11:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria Edit War on its Intro

Dear Rob, a Long debated and agreed Intro to the Transnistria page has caused an edt war, Please can you assist in warning the edit warriors or must we lock the page, Mark us street Nov 27th

Transnistria 2

We have an agreed intro on our talk page please check and revert back TEXT agreed by FIVE editors PLEASE do not change it.:Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is an unrecognized country in Southeastern Europe which declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence has not been recognized and the sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention.

Mark us street N27th

Transnistria 3

The current format is fine was agreed btween five of us from all sides. The person making the edits is MariusM and he was party to the original debate. Everyones views were taken into account including his. However, he has decided to forget the proracted debate and the result negotiated by an outside neutral editor that we all accepted. I have reverted back to the external editors decision as it was democratically agreed and truly represents the middle ground. All I am asking is that this agreed intro be kept and the edit warriors held back or blocked. Mark us street Nov 27th

Accusations of French genocide against Algerians

Please see Talk:Accusations of French genocide against Algerians#Article for Deletion --Philip Baird Shearer 18:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of University College, Durham

The article University College, Durham you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:University College, Durham for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Chrisfow 14:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule Warning

The changes I am removing are those of editors who admit to not having read any sources, but continue to edit sections of the article based on those sources. They are editing the sections to say that the sources printed things which they sources did not print. For example, the article now sources editors' personal points of view on why something happened to a Boston Globe article when the Boston Globe article doesn't even address what happened let alone why. If I'm not supposed to remove outright fabrications from articles, what am I supposed to do? Allow people to write fiction about public figures? Is that the way this site operates, where anybody can just write whatever they want about a public figure, and even pretend their fiction is backed up by newspaper reporting? That seems grossly unfair to any reader who would actually come here looking for accurate information, let alone to the public figure and the newspaper. WillyWonty 22:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Rob, I removed 3 items of POV from the BI page. The slightest little bit of POV that Unionists, or some of the diehard BI enthusiasts don't like, it doesn't last 5 minutes. And an editor is likely to get his knuckles severely rapped. The article is slowly being gnawed!! MelForbes 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Oh, the humanity! I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel Talk 13:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kafenio

I am involved in another AfD, Articles for deletion/Suite101.com, and noticed an unusual pattern involving two editors. I have noted them on the AfD talk page. I think Rough (talk · contribs) and Youtrue (talk · contribs) are meatpuppets or sockpuppets.

There's similar overlap for 85.74.99.74 (talk · contribs) and 87.203.140.24 (talk · contribs)

69.140.173.15 (talk · contribs) just seems to enjoy AfDs and is probably unrelated to the others.

What's really odd are the edit histories for the blank, but blue-linked talk and user pages for some of the IP accounts [22], [23], [24], [25]. All were effectively blue-linked by SteveHopson (talk · contribs), who voted the other way. Why would he do this?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irascible Professor also appeared to have Rough and Youtrue working in cahoots. I left a note for W.marsh, who closed that AfD.

I don't have time to dig further ... I thought you'd be interested. --A. B. 21:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A little more history and drama among some of the same players at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberta Beach Jacobson -- herding these cats must be why you admins make all the money around here! Cheers, --A. B. 21:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If I can say my piece to this ... see talk on Suite101. I know YouTrue and sometimes we agree, others not. Rough 00:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Rough, is YouTrue the subject of one of these articles? SteveHopson 02:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Seing as you're probably all watching this page, its probably easiest for me to reply here. I must admit I thought there looked something a little 'wrong' about the Kafenio deletion debate. If we believe that Rough/YouTrue have come to this honestly - and there's no reason to presume otherwise - then we still have the difficulty that Rough has revealed that they are personally involved in the organisations and didn't reveal this when giving their views. Given the comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com that shows this, I know that I would have seriously re-thought my decision on Kafenio if I had know this. I wonder whether relisting these articles might therefore be appropriate. --Robdurbar 08:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)