User talk:InShaneee

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:InShaneee/Archive/Nov06. Sections with less than two timestamps (that have not been replied to) are not archived.

Click here to start a new talk section.

• Archive - May 06
• Archive - June 06
• Archive - July 06
• Archive - August 06

Don't you think there are better articles

Than Scientology to tell about the recent legal action against that website? You reverted it back into the article. But don't you think, upon examination, that it should go in Scientology and the Legal System or some related article? The reason there are so many articles is because Scientology involves itself in so many areas. Can't we, as editors, help the reader by presenting appropriate information in appropriate articles? Terryeo 18:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghost Hunters Page

Please don't remove content and post notices without joining the discussion first. Thanks. LuckyLouie 02:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The criticism noted in the article is sourced by the external links. LuckyLouie 02:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please drop a note in the ==TALK== page at The_Atlantic_Paranormal_Society to explain exactly which sentences you feel need sourcing. Thanks. LuckyLouie 20:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

One Week block

Why did I get blocked for an entire week? That's way out of line. People were tormenting me, and I got blocked. And not just blocked but excessively. Humankind 04:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Children of the Sun (game)

Sorry to burst your bubble but there IS in fact mecha in the game. I've been trying to find the original larger picture but can't get a hole of it, however there is a smaller version on this review site which demonstrates that there is a form of mecha prevalent in the game: 1 Piecraft 15:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi thanks for getting back to me, try copy and pasting this address in your browser: http://www.scifi.com/sfw/games/sfw8770.html it should take you to the review article and if you scroll down you can see the image, or you can access the image here as well: http://www.scifi.com/sfw/images/games/children220020812.jpg or image. Piecraft 20:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay I'll give you that, but the fact that Pollak has stated this game is dieselpunk which in essence is supposed to borrw the mindset/ideas relating to cyberpunk and to a greater degree steampunk, such creations would fall into an anachronistic form of Mecha, even if they are not war machines, they possess the same qualities which are stated in the mecha article "Bubblegum Crisis, the similar replicants of Blade Runner, and cyborgs can be referred to as mecha, as well as mundane real-life objects such as industrial robots, cars and even toasters. In Japanese, the term "giant robots" is used in the similar context that English speakers have repurposed the term "mecha."" Another examplification is the Iron Giant, even if The Harvesters are brought to life through magic they are monstrous mechanical forms, and there is no other word to define them, robots would indicate that they have robotics in their system, etc... it makes more sense to adapt the term "mecha", seeing as you stated they are salvaged from farming equipment and are mechanical in their structure and construct. Anyway I don't want to make a big thing out of it, I just thought it would be good to have a reference to it as a form of "other" mecha forms present in fiction. Piecraft 20:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Torn City Page Deletion?

Hi,

I am appalled that you deleted a page on the gaming subject Torn City which I spent three hours working on last night - is there any reason for this?

With kind regards, please restore this page. Jordanhatch 14:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Paul Cyr nominated for adminship

You may be interested to know that User:Paul Cyr has been nominated for adminship. -- Gnetwerker 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. You probably have more influence in these things that I. -- Gnetwerker 20:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I Don't believe this

I have good reason to recreate the page.

I have checked the deletion logs and realised why the page was deleted originally - with good reason. So with good intent, I decided to make it a real Wikipedia page with history and background of the game. I don't see why that should be deleted.

If it's the facts on the pages that you do not believe, then check the websites - otherwise I don't see what is wrong with the revised edition of the page.

Warnings

This isn't normal spoilers like for movies(which I think should be posted), this was about something that hadn't aired on TV. WikiProject Professional Wrestling has agreed that things like title changes shouldn't be posted before they air on TV, this user was told several times not to do that so I thought a warning might get him to start. I was not out of line to do that and I was justified in doing so. TJ Spyke 20:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I won't warn anyone else. Their edits though will be reverted though until it airs on TV. TJ Spyke 20:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Emails related to ED

Yes, everyone who is an admin, and has email activiated, has received emails about this very deletion, and the user who sent the emails has been blocked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

vandalism???

Hi

Why did you remove something from my talk page?--Sa.vakilian 02:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean. He is my friend and maybe hi is a freind of others too?

I didnt know that informing my friends in matters concerning them is defined as spamming.

No problem. I shall never do it again:) --Zereshk 02:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you editing my talk page?

What gives other users to edit other users' talk pages? [1] Why don't you use your admin powers for something positive? --(Aytakin) | Talk 03:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

See Shane?

The point you fail to see is that I just asked them to vote, that's all. Many of them vote against my position. But I just want their participation. And that's not vote stacking. Knowing you, I know you wont reverse your own decision. But anyway, for the record, you were wrong in deleting my posts.--Zereshk 03:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

But then again, I'll keep my promise and wont do it again, so that all will be happy:)--Zereshk 03:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep my tone civil? Did I curse or yell? Also is editing other people's talk pages a policy too? --(Aytakin) | Talk 03:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You are very rude Aytakin. Khejalat dareh! --Aminz 03:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Shane,

You can force your will on us, delete the article, or ban me, but what I did was not internal spamming, because I never know how my friends will vote. If you take a closer look, User:Tajik for example, actually did not vote for my position, and I am totally happy with that, because I just wanted his participation. So I think youre just trying to impose your decision on others. But then again, there's nothing I can do about it. So peace be to you bro.--Zereshk 03:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I told you, there is no respect for policy here. You should have just blocked him instead of giving him a warning he would just brush off and not take seriously.--Jersey Devil 03:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk, common! You are talking as if someone doesn't know will think you informed editors who didn't have persian usernames (Tajik maybe an exception). Common, accept what you did. I personally don't think it was bad. You informed editors who have experiences of living both in Iran and west. They should have been informed. But by doing this, you violated Wiki policy. --Aminz 03:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Aminz. Jersey Devil, blocks are preventative, not punitive. We don't block people because they're jerks; we block people to stop them from violating policy. Zereshk's stopped spamming for the moment, and he's been warned. --InShaneee 03:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BLOCKING!!!!!!!!!! BLOCKING WHO! FOR WHAT?! --Aminz 03:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Aminz, I was thanking you for agreeing with me. The other part was just telling JD that I'm not going to block Zereshk right now, which he keeps insisting needs to be done. --InShaneee 03:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he did violate the policy. But that wasn't serious. I am thankful that he informed me of this. Blocking him, because of this is just "too" unfair. In response Jersey can inform several other editors. That's it. --Aminz 03:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, as they should be. My point is that he wasn't going to respect the warning and I was correct in that he didn't as can be seen from his response. Considering his long time here he should already know what the policy is. I am not saying that he should have been blocked "as punishment" but so that he will know for future periods not to violate wikipedia policy thus such a block would have been preventative and such blocks have been issued in the past. Anyway, there is nothing we can do now so there is no point in arguing it out. I just find it incredibly frustrating that some users are allowed to get away with this kind of stuff repeatedly without administrator action.--Jersey Devil 03:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, no I disagree. Two wrongs don't make a right. Counterspamming is not a correct response and is disruptive to Wikipedia. I did the proper thing by simply reporting it on AN/I and I do respect the decision not to block regardless of my disagreement with it.--Jersey Devil 03:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

He's not getting away with anything, and you need to assume good faith. He's never been warned about spamming before (I checked), and if he does it again, he will face the consiquences. Yes, reporting it to AN:I was the right thing to do, thank you. Aminz, I'm not blocking him for that, and no, Jersey can't spam people, either. Yes, it was 'serious' in the sense that he can be blocked for it. You don't break policy 'just a little bit'; if you break it, you've broken it, period. --InShaneee 03:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

my reply to Jersey : First of all, please note that if he was really dishonest (given his experience in wikipedia), he could have informed others via email. Let think about it this way: Everybody can inform whoever he/she wants. Fair, isn't it? Why should only those who check the AfD page be eligible to give their opinions on the articles? --Aminz 03:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Because that's what the policy says, and if you don't like it, I'm the wrong person to talk to (since I can't change it and I'm personally all for it). --InShaneee 03:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you dislike it then join the policy discussions to change the policy but one can't just counterspam regardless if in one's mind they think it is fair.--Jersey Devil 03:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I said. --InShaneee 03:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time for that unfortunately. I know many who have a strong email network in wikipedia. This policy of spamming is kind of funny since it encourages people to be dishonest and turn to other kinds of communication. --Aminz 04:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

(reply to Jeresy) No, Jersey. What do you achieve by reporting it on AN/I? You are ensuring that you and him will never become friends one day. It strikes me that for some reason, you want him get banned, otherwise your post to the AfD page was already enough; you know, this makes me more determined to defend his case as much as I can. --Aminz 03:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I report all violations to wikipolicy that I encounter on AN/I.--Jersey Devil 04:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it spamming to tell people you know about a vote being taking place on an article? What a load of rubbish! Kiumars 14:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Believe me or not

Believe me or not, I've seen many who think Iran is all desert. Now I don't know what is the best name for that if not "misconception"? --Aminz 03:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article has lots of OR, true, but this only because the article is young. I'm sure many of them can be sourced. (since media talks much about Iran today ;) ) --Aminz 03:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Farsi Wikipedia

According to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise he is trying to attract votes from the Farsi language Wikipedia. [2] Obviously I (and probably you) can't read Farsi but the aforementioned user who understands it says that is what he is doing. He also commented on the section regarding the incident on AN/I. [3]--Jersey Devil 06:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry the link I gave originally was broken. Now corrected above. It's in English, actually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

We should check when this comment has been posted (i.e. after he was asked to stop spamming other pages, or before it.) Done I checked it. They were posted before he was asked to stop spamming other pages. --Aminz 06:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[Edit conflict... :-) ] It was apparently at 00:26 UTC tonight, i.e. before the warnings. Had to look up the Arabic numerals first... But in view of the history of similar offenses (which I believe he was warned about too), and in view of his unrepentant reaction afterwards (stating that next time he'd just do the same per e-mail to avoid detection [4]), I think it certainly is a significant detail. But thanks for your efforts for fairness on all sides, Aminz! Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Future Perfect at Sunrise, in Farsi we say: "Az molaghate shoma khoshbakht shodam" which means nice to meet you! My feeling is that the relation between Zereshk, InShaneee, Jersey Devil and you is already tense. I am a lonely passenger in the middle of a battleground. --Aminz 07:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove comments from my talk page

Hello Shane, Please don't remove comments from my talk page. It is against wikipedia guidelines and is considered vandalism, and you have been warned about this before by others.

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Shervink 10:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

I would like to note for people viewing this page that the user Inshaneee did not engage in vandalism, he removed internal spamming (per standard process) in the above user's talk page and this vandalism tag is completely unwarranted.--Jersey Devil 11:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, the above statement by user Jersey Devil is incorrect. The statement in concern was on my talk page, and it was certainly not spam. I should know it since it is my talk page! Removing contents of talk pages is vandalism, and user Inshaneee has engaged in such vandalism before, as seen on this page. Shervink 12:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

As a matter of fact, the policy regarding vandalism explicitly says that removing comments from talk pages is vandalism, the only exception being the removal of personal attacks. This was not a personal attack, so removing it from my talk page was vandalism. (Even if your claim that it is internal spamming was correct!)

The page on spamming clearly says that "occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice", and does not identify spamming as vandalism, nor does it give people the right to remove it from talk pages in this manner. In fact, it suggests to the author to remove spams after the election is over!

In conclusion, Inshaneee, you have clearly violated policy and commited vandalism by removing those comments. Please realize your mistake and don't do this in the future.

By the way, I was not going to vote there anyway, and if I did, I probably wouldn't vote to keep it in this way. So you are wrong if you think it was orchestrated to promote a certain agenda. One more reason that it was not actually spamming. Shervink 15:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

• InShaneee , talk page is a personal/private page, it is not an article that you go and revert! I want to know what people want to tell me on my talk page. Stop deleting messages on my talk page, it is a very rude and uncivil act.Kiumars 14:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • While this is all very interesting, spamming talk pages to advertise AFD discussions is not permitted and InShaneee's actions were correct. AFD is a consensus, not a vote. BigDT 15:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I think you're wrong. The policy explicitly says that removing talk page contents is vandalism, and it does not state spams as an exception to that, Therefore, (even) removing spams from other people's talk pages is vandalism. If you think it is not, show me exactly (quote) which policy allows editors to remove spams from other people's talk pages. The fact that spamming is a violation of policy does not mean that you can stop it with another violation of policy!Shervink 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

I also was not happy with a removal of somebody else's comment from my webpage!--Ali doostzadeh 22:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, you don't need to be happy with it for it to be right. --InShaneee 02:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You revert of edits Teen Titans (TV series)

Please note that while my comments were harsh, the article shouldn't have to suffer for them. Your revert positioned the "fact" back in a place which, quite frankly, makes it more unsightly than usual. Furthermore, direct links or redorects are both acceptible forms of wikification. Changing the link from "Amerime" to the article name is unnecessary. Due to these concerns, I have have your revert of my edits to be invalid and shall swiftly revert it, in turn, now. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a lame edit war. Please pack it in, the pair of you, neither of you are right, nor are either of you wrong. I don't want to pick a version, work it out without edit warring. Steve block Talk 21:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk's block

Hi InShaneee,

Since you were involved in Zereshk's case, it would be better to leave the decision to a third admin. 'Please' unblock him and ask another admin who hasn't been involved in this case to have a look at his case. Thanks --Aminz 19:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee, First of all, I think 48 hours is too long. Secondly, When you first raised the penalty of blocking for Zereshk, I was completely surprised. I felt it was too soon for such a decision (or even mentioning that). Zereshk's case wasn't too tense as I percieved. His last post to Sa.Vakilian still bothered me too, but I feel your judgment (48 hours block) doesn't suit what he did. Furthermore, *I*'m sure this block will not be a constructive one for wikipedia (because he will never do this anyway; and we all know many people, including some admins, are using *secure* communications). It is important to note that Zereshk was civil, didn't vandalize anything, etc. etc. I've seen people vandalize a page for a couple of time, they are warned for a couple of time, but then the penalty are imposed on them at the very end. InShaneee, I am not an admin. But if I were, I would have disputed the block (or at least its length). Still I have some objections to the policy that Zereshk violated itself. --Aminz 19:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey

I know we have had our problems but i didn't do this [5]. I think you should keep a civil tone and don't accuse people for no reason. I hope we can just put this whole problem aside. And I'm asking the following with no tone or in any harsh way and for my own curiosiy. Why are you so determined to delete that page? No hard feelings. --(Aytakin) | Talk 21:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And what about [6]? --(Aytakin) | Talk 21:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee, Excuse me, [7] is comment made by "Steve block" and not by Aytakin!!!!!!!! Am I reading the usernames mistakenly? --Aminz 00:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

:(

InShaneee, I haven't had much experience with both you and Zereshk before this. InShaneee, Are you interested to see my saddest and loneliest experience in wikipedia: [8]. Enjoy it. Nobody even payed a tiny bit of attention to me for my call of just looking into your "light" punishment imposed on Zereshk.--Aminz 08:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

May I remove your comments from my talk page so that I may feel a bit better of what I see but can't do anything about? --Aminz 18:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

CCulber007 again

It has been almost a month since CCulber007 has been banned. He has assured me that he will not violate WP:NPA or WP:NLT again. I figure that if we lift the ban, we have nothing to lose; if he acts up again, then we can always ban him again. And we may have a valuable Wikipedia contributor to gain. Thus, I think we might want to give him another chance; after all, people are dynamic creatures, and frequently learn from their mistakes. What do you think? Cheers, -- Where 03:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I will do so. 70.18.81.10 04:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

response to your question

Hi, InShaneee, you asked at Jersey Devil "How exactly does one prove that they're not in the cabal?" Here's my answer. For one, by not acting like Misza13 and his supporters did when I opposed his rfa. (The one opposition). If you check it out and then check out the threat that was made to me on my page, you may be a bit disconcerted. I will admit that JerseyDevil did not act like Misza13 did, at least. Still too many clique votes for me. Shannon^{duck talk} 04:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, InShaneee, thanks for your note on my page. I do think that the candidates qualifications are important in ordinary circumstances. I don't think that these are ordinary circumstances. There is something strange going on here. I have seen rfas that did not have the flavor that they have now. Jersey Devil didn't do what Misza13 did in reaction to my vote of opposition. Maybe this is not the same kind of thing, not sure. From what I have seen of this editor I don't care for his style and don't particularly trust him anyway. How come you don't say anything about the way I was threatened with fallout if I didn't change my vote. Don't you find that kind of intimidation ultra strange? It's sounds like somthing that comes from a dictatorial beaurocracy to me. Shannon^{duck talk} 04:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

I am one of the people Zereshk sent message to regarding the vote. I understand that was against the rules and you did what you had to do. But IMHO i think the reason Zereshk was trying so hard to keep that article from deletion, was that the article proves or tries to prove that Iranians(not the government) are not the monsters many people think they are. On another subject i would appreciate it if you didn't call me(according to your post about the people zereshk sent messages to) a groupie lol, thanks  :). Best regards --Spahbod 05:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jersey Devil

Hi...was hoping you noticed Jersey Devil's very excellent reply at the bottom of his nomination page regarding the edit you had a particular question about. I think he did a very good job trying to address your concerns and hope that you might have a minute to read over his comments. Thanks.--MONGO 06:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...WTF?

Seriously...somebody here has issues, and I don't know if it's you or me...

Son of a Peach 07:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

?

Okay, InShaneee, I'll admit I don't understand what the hell you are trying to say to me or why. You are threatening me with fallout now? What do you mean by fallout? Why don't you just come out and say what's on your mind. None of this makes sense. In any case how is one oppose vote going to affect 132 support votes? The way I feel about these things is how I feel, anyhow. I won't be intimidated into changing my vote. If you want to block me now, go ahead, I can't stop you. I was pretty clear about why I voted the way I did. The more coercive objection I got to my vote, the less I wanted to change it. If you feel a need to throw your administrative power around now there's not much I can do about it. Shannon^{duck talk} 07:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for my harshness. I do have a temper sometimes. No hard feelings and peace. Shannon^{duck talk} 09:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Report at WP:AN/I

Hi, InShaneee. Since you were the one who blocked Robsteadman indefinitely, I think I should bring this report to your attention. He came back as Robertsteadman, was blocked when he refused to say if he was the same user, and was then unblocked and put on probation. I'm afraid he has continued the same pattern of hysterical abuse. A new user called Neuropean, who is probably Count Of The Saxon Shore, with whom Rob had been in dispute, nominated for deletion an article he had created, and since then, Rob has been on a personal vendetta, filing RFCUs and RFIs, showing up at all the articles that Neuropean was editing, while continuing to insult him. Neuropean made a plea for him to stop, saying that he suffers from depression and that Rob was making it worse, and Rob just carried on. Neuropean has now left. His behaviour was certainly not impeccable, but it does seem certain that Robert was wiki-stalking him, and hurling insults at him (sockpuppet, vandal, stalker), and that it just got too much for him. Although I personally find Rob(ert) to be an extremely abusive and disruptive editor, I believe that I have always behaved with fairness towards him, voting to keep his article,[9] removing a taunt after his sockpuppetry was discovered,[10] removing evidence of his sockpuppetry and of his indefinite blocking from the talk page of his article[11] [12] (since it probably wouldn't be very nice for him if someone — maybe one of his students — looked up the composer Robert Steadman, and found out what his history on Wikipedia was), and on several occasions reverted vandalism or harassing messages from his user or talk pages, and asked other editors to leave him alone, despite the fact that throughout all of this, he was making hysterical accusations against me as well as against numerous others.

I feel that I should have acted more quickly, because when I saw the accusation that Rob was wiki-stalking Neuropean, I took a quick look at the contributions of both editors, and it seemed to be true, but I was involved with making other posts, so I put off doing something about it. I don't think Neuropean will be back, but I'd like to feel that this can't happen again with someone else. It was completely characteristic of the way Rob(ert) used to behave with people he had been in dispute with before he was indefinitely blocked. If you have time to look at my report, I'd appreciate it. If not, no problem. I know it can take a long time to read up about something that you haven't already been following fully. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 17:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please talk to user:Syrthiss who has more information - there is much more to this than the factually inaccurate acocount being posted around WP by Ann. Robertsteadman 17:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that I said that I wouldn't edit here again but I feel quite strongly that an indefinite ban isn't appropriate here.

• Robert isn't a vandal out to disrupt, he is just very opinionated and stubborn. Yes, he can be quite rude at times, but my experiences on Wiki lead me to believe that abruptness is not an uncommon feature. His problem has been that he is looking for cabals and conspiracies and, to a very small extent, he has been justified in this.
• Has he said sorry? Yes he has. Is he likely to do this again soon? No, I don't think so. I know for a fact that he can change for the better.
• He has only really overstepped the mark with me and I suppose I am a red rag to abull to him (although he sees me everywhere, even when it is not me. I have promised never to post on any forum where he is a member, so future suspicion shouldn't be a problem. I feel that if I hadn't AfD'd his article, he would have continued in his 'ways' but not gone OTT, so I would rather not see him blocked.
• I object in the strongest terms to any suggestion that I have stalked him in real life, I don't know exactly what evidence he has presented in his private emails, but whatever it is has got to be wrong. But I suppose that he has found my behaviour annoying - the AFD may have been a WP:Point, but wasn't meant as a 'personal' attack. It went downhill from there.
• It has never been my attention to upset anyone - including Robert and I do not want to see him lose his hobby because of me. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I'm sure Robert will agree with me.
• I ask all concerned admins to give him one more chance. Blocking him will mean one less contributor and (although I still say that Moortje was an article crying out for a AfD,) he has made many positive contributions.
• His probation wasn't very specific. Instead of blocking him, I ask that he be given more specfic terms and he be held to those in his future actions. Any admin action should be based upon 'future' productivity and not past indiscretions. I think that's the whole point of Wiki.

That's all.Neuropean 23:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

DUDE!!!

What are you doing? Son of a Peach 18:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

=DUDE!!! AGAIN!!!

WTF? You deleted WP:RD?MISC. Son of a Peach 18:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You said it was cross namespace. WP: redirecting to Wikipedia: is not cross-namespace. And for some reason, I have a problem with you. Sorry. I don't know what it is about you that bugs me. It's just...whatever. Son of a Peach 18:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop fragmenting

When I leave you a message on your talk page, respond to it there. I don't like doing the Talk Pgae Shuffle to keep up with a conversation. Son of a Peach 18:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Now, as I said, disrespect is not tolerated here, and if you continue, you will be blocked again. --InShaneee 18:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Spam?

Hi, I just notified some users about a couple of polls I thought they'd find interesting. I thought it was OK to notify users as long as you don't do it in a way that tells them what to vote. Should I reword the message? I am sorry if I bordered violation of a rule I am not aware of (did I?}. Please point me to it, so that it doesn't happen again. Also, about ManiF's comment, I guess I came second in commenting on his arguments, not the user himself...:NikoSilver: 21:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I read the part also under "The following guidelines for cross-posting have wide acceptance among Wikipedians", and it doesn't seem I've violated any of this. I've also examined closer my messages to ManiF, and it seems that despite the fact I was rather pissed off of him taking me to WP:RFCU, I didn't actually curse on him. I just said his actions were funny, trollish, and pointy (which they were).:NikoSilver: 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call him a troll. I called his actions trollish, after I had received the same characterisation out of the blue. His actions were indeed trollish, pointy and funny. Now on the other issue, why does the policy go on to say under which contexts it is allowed to send multiple messages? Is the policy confusing, or am I missing something? :NikoSilver: 22:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So I suppose you think that him taking me to RFCU in the first place was not trollish or pointy or funny? Did you read admin Aldux's comment there? I was quite civil, despite the circumstances. :NikoSilver: 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Right about saying that 3 apparently distinct users may be socks? You must know there is a whole history behind this, and he was already certain that that wasn't the case. Also, it seems he ommitted quite a few other users that had the same behavior. In any case, the only thing this issue has achieved, is taking our time. This is disruption. I won't argue anymore about it, InShaneee. Let's leave it at that, and I'll try not to give excuses for such warnings in the future. But you must admit that this is a grey-area. Ok? :NikoSilver: 22:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point. He already knew, because in quite a few instances we've crossed our paths. Now about spamming, I won't notify others in voting again, but I seriously doubt that is the content or intention of the policy, which must be rewritten anyway to clarify what you just wrote on my page: If you are involved in the debate, you aren't allowed to notify people. I find it hard to understand how dozens of polls that I have seen, were attended by users who found out because they were interested on the content. I myself (and I am sure you too) have received many messages notifying me for a poll, which I do not find bad in any way, as long as the notification is not biased. :NikoSilver: 22:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Your vandalism on my talk page

Dear Shane, as for other users, it is up to them to complain or not when you remove messages from their talk pages. In case of my page, I would like to ask you not to remove other people's messages, even if you think it is spam. There is no guideline on wikipedia to support your action, as I explained before, and if you think there is, please show me the quote. You are not obliged by policy to remove the message so I ask you not to do it. If you cannot support your actions with the guidelines then you are in violation of those, and I warn you not to repeat that in the future. Shervink 08:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

---

InShaneee see below my reply to the message you left on my talk page stating: Firstly, talk pages are as public as anything else on wikipedia. If you haven't noticed, anyone can edit them too. Secondly, removing spam not only is policy, but has been as long as you remember. If you don't like it, complain to someone else. --InShaneee 16:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Re: talk pages are as public as anything else on wikipedia. If you haven't noticed, anyone can edit them too.

People reading Wiki I am sure are intelligent enough to realize that User Talk pages are not Wiki articles and these are only a means of communication between the members. Civilized users edit the page to add their comments to the page not deleting other people’s posts!

• Re: If you don't like it, complain to someone else.

Who should I complain to? Give me a name please. Who is in charge in Wiki? Kiumars 11:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Inshaneee is wrong. Editing other people's talk pages for reasons other than leaving comments is generally considered vandalism. There are a few exceptions, but removal of internal spamming is not one of them, you can read it yourself on the policy page. Moreover, you can read yourself that removal of internal spamming is not a policy of wikipedia. Internal spamming is by the way not identified as vandalism. Shervink 12:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

Zereshk vs Pecher

Could you please have a look at this. --Aminz 22:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Long time ago, Pecher made these comments:

1. [13]Also, Pecher has not explained yet what I need to learn according to his comment. If you can ask him to let me know what I should learn about my religion, that would be great.

2.[14]

I personally didn't consider it as "personal attacks", nor did [user:Tom harrison] (in the first case). Can you please let me know your opinion. Thanks

Tom harrison said, Pecher's first comment (i.e. "Nonsense. Aminz, please learn something about the religion to which you supposedly adhere before making these baseless arguments. There is more than the Qur'an and hadith that can be used to achieve consensus. ") can be interpreted as personal attacks. There was also no warning of getting blocked. --Aminz 22:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. that said, it is clear Zereshk's comment was incivil. --Aminz 22:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

AND are any of the above "Personal attacks"?? --Aminz 02:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think so, especially that first one. --InShaneee 02:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks --Aminz 02:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Mate

I have checked your contribs etc, and I really feel you should reconsider the fact that you decided to donate so much time and efforts to wikipedia. There are certainly better things to do in your life. Do me a favour and try to think how nice it would be if you were out with your friends right now. Azmoc 22:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Request

Please block User:Ahwaz:Ahwaz and user 68.49.90.60 They have continuously been vandalizing several articles and have both broken the 3rrv rule (3 revert rule).Khosrow II 01:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then please do lock those three articles for now. i have put the tag in already but im not sure if regular users can do that or not. the articles as they are now are the versions that have been agreed upon, so please do lock those three.: Tabriz rug, Persian Gulf, and Iranian Azerbaijan. thanks.Khosrow II 03:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the help.Khosrow II 03:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks?

Regarding your last post to me, practice what you preach. How is it OK for you to tell everyone I'm "ranting"[15], and have "groupies"?

STOP HARRASSING ME.

LEAVE ME ALONE!!--Zereshk 01:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The solution is easy: "Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users." And the fact of the matter is that YOU attacked me, and not the content, by labeling my statements as "rant" and all users supporting me as "groupies". THAT IS A VIOLATION OF POLICY. get that straight.

Youve picked a bad fight, shane. I have a far cleaner record than you. Let it go. And leave me alone.--Zereshk 02:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Shane, how long do you wish to keep my user page locked? Its been several days now. Is that also policy?--Zereshk 23:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Aminz block

Hi InShaneee,

First, I'm appreciative of your ongoing efforts to keep Wikipedia free of personal attacks and harassment. As an editor who's been practically driven from Wikipedia by these phenomenon, I can only ask that WP will get more admins like you in this regard.

However, Aminz has been unfairly caught on the business end of this Zereshk business. Perhaps he shouldn't have been sympathizing with or defending him, but Aminz is a lawful and good-faith editor who doesn't make personal attacks, or harass anyone. Cyde has blocked him. This is completely uncalled for and unnecessary.Timothy Usher 06:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

per Neuropean, re Robertsteadman

(this is being sent to Shane, Dan, and Ann as the three who Neuropean contacted with his request as well as Tony)

Assuming you read what Neuropean wrote, do you have any consideration of giving Robert another last chance? I have my own feelings on the matter, but want more feedback. Please reply here, or on my talk page, or email me. Syrthiss 12:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What is Spam

Hi

Whould you please describe for me what spam is? If you notice my messages there aren't the same. So I think it van't be spam. As I know spam is a one message which copied in too many people talk page and the massage should exactly the same.--Sa.vakilian 03:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings

InShaneee, I don't have any hard feelings towards you. I hope you also don't have any towards me. Thanks --Aminz 22:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Your problem

I think you have some problem with me. I also know that this was not a personal attack and was simply a repeat of what others said of that page - none of whom have received a warning from you. This proves my belief that you are keen to block me because you do not like my edits, rather than any violation of rules. It seems to me that you are stalking me and others in order to find the smallest deviation from a strict interpretation of policy in your effort to block people.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Who did I attack? Name the user and I will apologise to them.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am very very sorry for you and others who felt insulted by my simple comment that I was voting to counteract vote stacking, although I make no accusation against you - I was just explaining why I was voting. In future, I will consult with you before I vote, just in case.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

When you write on User:Aminz's talk page that he has "been doing little aside from crusading across the wiki in a fairly disruptive manner" because he sent messages to several people on an issue of Wikipedia policy [16], do you think you were being civil? I suggest to you that perhaps your manner is more disruptive than the behaviour you claim you are trying to combat. That is not a personal insult, that is my opinion. As is often said, this is not a place for elitism and I believe in the maxim "question everything" and that includes your judgement as an admin.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Who else have you threatened with blocks? User:Hipocrite made the same point and received no warning from you. The truth is that you have a personal problem with me, not whatever I say. This has surfaced more than once, for example when you refused to warn users who were uncivil towards me. In my opinion, you take sides and that makes you a bad admin.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You say you "discussed the matter with each and every person who made such incivil accusations". Show me where you warned User:Hipocrite for making exactly the same point as I did.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"I've got better things to do than babysit you"[17] - very nice, Shane. Is this an example of your "civility"? I asked a simple question. Why warn one user and not the other for the same remark? Take a look on my talk page and you will find a far more direct approach by another user to the vote-staking campaigns run by some users.[18] I agree with him wholeheartedly. It is time for some honesty here. Let me be honest. You are not enforcing policy uniformly, you are bullying. You accuse me of civility, but you have thrown far more incivility at me. Shame on you for your behaviour. You should not be an admin, in my opinion. User:Aminz is correct. Admins should be required to put themselves up for re-election to weed out the dross.

And I can make any demand I want - this is not a hierarchical organisation, remember? --الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with incivility, then I suggest you go block yourself for little quips like "I've got better things to do than babysit you" [19] when I ask you to explain your pattern of warnings. You still haven't answered my original question. Why block me and not others who make exactly the same point as me? You are accountable to the Wikipedia community for your decisions. As someone directly affected by your judgements, I demand an answer.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from Yanksox

Hey, Shane, thanks for supporting my RfA, with a tally of 104/4/7... I am now an admin!!! I was and still am very flattered by all the kind comments that I recieved, I will also take into account the comments about how I could improve. I guarantee I will try my best to further assist Wikipedia with the mop. Feel free to drop in and say hi or if you need anything. Again, thank you so much! Yanksox 07:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverts of Carnivàle

• Hey Shane. You recently reverted some editing I did on the Carnivàle article. Mostly I was just trying to make it easier to understand and I don't think I left out any of the article that was there before - it was just rearranged. I didn't see a reasoning on the talk page and was just curious what was wrong with my edits.--Torourkeus 20:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • thanks. I put it back, and i also (in a seperate and still revertable edit) fixed a section that i believe you commented as being hard to understand. I totally revamped this one and wouldn't mind your opinion on the matter.--Torourkeus 00:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Bionicle revert

Hello Shane,

Why did you revert my edit to Bionicle? It's not a "status update", as you call it, I just think people should know that there's no point in going to that website right now. Is there some policy against this that I am not aware of? --TorriTorri 00:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME???

DID YOU IGNORE MY GODDAMN CONTRIBUTIONS??? I made that comment, you want to know why? Jewfros is extremely deragatory, why do you call them jewfros, because a jewish person has the fro..it was originally called afro, there was NO PROOF for something called a jewfro meaning that is original thinking, I will report you to an admin for harassment, no proof=not wiki worthy.--Jerluvsthecubs 20:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Dbachmann

User:Bharatveer is the latest of several users who’ve made a sport of attacking User:Dbachmann as an anti-Hindu zealot, see this thread. There is basically no way for dab to deal with these editors; they ask for nothing, and offer him no out, but only attack.Timothy Usher 10:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher is known to harrass other users. [20] . He also makes a point of attacking Hindu users on wiki. I don't know if Bharatveer is till blocked but I saw this on his talk page. Dab uses IP accounts to create a sense of consensus [21] and make personal attacks. I just wanted you to have twwo sides of the discussion. Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I would advise him to look at WP:NPA (Bharatveer).Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Dear Inshaneee,

I would like to draw your attention towards continuous personal attacks by User:Adkagansu, such as these: [22], [23]. He has vandalized my talk page before, and now has resorted to personal attacks. I believe that kind of behaviour is unacceptable on Wikipedia.--TigranTheGreat 21:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking him, he was being a jerk to me too. --Awiseman 17:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I know it's temporary, and that's what he was. How about "unpleasant and unreasonable"? --Awiseman 19:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't touch my userpage

Who are you, and why are you purging my userpage? The policies that allow what is written are documented specifically at the bottom of the content you removed. Sarastro777 20:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You repeatedly blanked all information from my userpage. This bypasses Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution and is considered vandalism.

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Sarastro777 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)