Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 22

Username change

If I get a username change on this wiki will it mess up my SUL? I reckon I'll need Eptalon's help on this one but an admin might now... so please help if you do. Cheers. FSM ^Noodly? 16:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You should have it changed everywhere, otherwise SUL won't work. Majorly ^talk 16:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. If you change it, get it changed everywhere as Majorly said, and then re-unify. Don't do it the other way round because then you can't be renamed everywhere else. Cheers, Goblin 16:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleting pages

A quick question: when I delete a page then I lose the username/ip adress of the person who created it. Is this right? It makes it hard to leave a message on their talk page. Am I doing this right, or should I leave the message first, then delete? Peterdownunder (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You won't lose it. You can see the IP on the undelete page. It doesn't matter whether you delete first or warn first. Chenzw  Talk  11:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew I must have been looking in the wrong spot.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Spambot on the loose

Just a heads up to people encountering anons creating such an article:

• 1. A rich mummy, usually green or bald.
• 2. To overbreak toes, i.e. to put a cat into a fish or into a dog.
• 3. To stab an elephant with a nostril.

This is a spambot, and should be blocked on sight. Chenzw  Talk  12:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I already do. Majorly ^talk 14:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I found an IP that created a page such as the one listed above and have listed it on the ViP page. Razorflame 17:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert IP edits?

An anon IP user, 24.16.56.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making tons of edits to List of colors (Revision history). I'm not sure wether it is vandalism, spam, a test edit(s), or a good-faith edit. He has been editing the page since Feb. 2. So I thought the admins might be able to decide on this. This is the revision before the IP user started editing the page.[1] --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 20:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

They've messed the article up for certain. Might be best just to revert right back. Majorly ^talk 20:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 20:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Flood flag enabled

Administrators can now grant themselves the flood flag, which works in the same way as a bot flag: hides your edits from recent changes. Accessible through Special:UserRights. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Have a look here. Thats more interesting. --barras 13:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Email abuse

I've been getting dozens of threat e-mails from Opinionss (talk · contribs) (as well as weird emails from wiki asking me to confirm password changes). I disabled e-mail on his account a while ago, so I'd appreciate if another admin could look into it. Thanks, –Juliancolton (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You had no involvement with that user whatsoever. I think it is just a one-off case; an email block should suffice. Chenzw  Talk  10:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikproject on how to create sock puppets.

I just deleted a "wikiproject" on how to be a sock without getting caught at User:Kalajan/templates. Makes you wonder whose puppet Kalajan is. Too bad you can't use checkuser without evidence of who the puppetmaster is. -Djsasso (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

See en:User:Kalajan and the block log. Speaks for itself really. :) PeterSymonds (talk)

I am a little slow today, normally I check that and hadn't even thought to do it this time. -Djsasso (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hah, no problem. I went over there because I thought it was an admin, so I was confused. Must've got two names mixed up. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup looks like another sockpuppet refugee. en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YoMamma6188/Archive -Djsasso (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

He has now created an essay essentially about the same topic minus the step by step process of how to do it. I am debating if its a valid QD since its in userspace. I think the topic is contrary to what should be on wiki. So how far does essay status in user space reach. -Djsasso (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

QD it, even if it is in his userspace because he is clearly trying to be disruptive. Razorflame 16:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah thats what I want to do but I want a second admins opinion. -Djsasso (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion doesn't count, even though I am not an admin?  :( Razorflame 16:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You opinion counts. But you can't push the button to do it. :p -Djsasso (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If it were the Simple English Wiktionary I could ;). Razorflame 16:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, wait, let us not start off on the wrong foot. I copied the essay from and en.wiki admin Chrislk02 (talk · contribs). Lets just stay away from this. It was just a stupid idea that ran through my head.  ←Kalajan→  17:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(un)I think that the essay should not be deleted yet. It actually only states facts. If it gives any indication on how to get round the blocks then it should be deleted. But currently it is only a few sentences on how blocking works. Kennedy ^(talk) 19:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the original essay. The comedy is that Chrislk02 wrote the essay in response to dealing with the steady flow of sockpuppets that got Kalajan perma-blocked from en. Precious Roy (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well an essay can always be used here too.  ←Kalajan→  15:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Propose temporary semi-protection for Alex Rodriguez

Hi there all. Because of the Alex Rodriguez scandal that is in the news right now, I would like to propose that his article here be semi-protected temporarily for a period of a few days as both a preventative measure and because I know that there will be vandalism to his article here. Thanks, Razorflame 16:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's fine right now, but I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I agree that no protection is needed right now, but because he is in the news, I just thought that there might be an increase in vandalism to his page. Cheers, Razorflame 16:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Our Pakistan friend...

Take a look at this. Is it alright to add a coat of arms just like that? I checked the MoS on EN but can't seem to find anything about it. They only mentioned flags. Chenzw  Talk  13:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this coat of arms aren't neccessary because there are the flags of the states in the box at the right handsite. It doesn't look nice at the top of an article. --barras 13:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't add anything does it, not even an explanation is being given to aid the reader. I was considering rollbacking when you posted this. fr33kman ^{t - c} 13:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

But we can't go on rollbacking him. Is someone able to post a message on his talk page? I don't know how to tell him about it (breach of policy? disruption?). Chenzw  Talk  13:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a message if you'd like to review it. fr33kman ^{t - c} 13:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You were faster than I. I added a message too. --barras 13:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) They are good enough. Now we just sit back and watch (and take action if necessary). This particular editor is notable for ignoring messages. Chenzw  Talk  13:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If he doesn't stop so wen can interpret his contibutions as vandalism. --barras 13:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to stop this. He/she is not adding {{enwp based}} tags to the talk page and is not rewording for Simple English, therefore these additions (new) are not helpful and can be QD G12, or what ever if the rule for direct, unreformated cut and paste from en:!! fr33kman ^{t - c} 13:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have calmed down a bit, but Razorflame just undid a POV push in Kashmir fr33kman ^{t - c} 14:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am slowly but surely going through his clear copy and paste jobs. Can't keep letting him just copy articles over like that. -Djsasso (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know: posting something on their talk page is generally not the problem; the problem is more that their talk page either gets ignored, or that they have issues understanding what is written there. User active here and on EnWP; hasn't created an account, and I am not aware of them ever replying to a message. Went through a number of blocks, and is usually back shortly after the block. Ideas appreciated; for precedents look through the admin noticeboard history. Known to operate from 3 or 4 ip address (ranges); some of them are shared by many users.--Eptalon (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree that warnings are probably useless, but at least they understand that someone is watching :-) (The good natured person in me has to try) :-) fr33kman ^{t - c} 16:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Something else: Editor is currently the only one editing Kashmir/Pakistan related topics (Bangladesh/India-related one one or two occasions), to my knowledge; and easily recognisable by that. --Eptalon (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we isolate the exact ranges that he edits from so that we could block those specific ranges? We could range block for a period of time and allow account creation (because I doubt that he will create an account, and it allows others who use the IP addresses to create accounts)? Otherwise, I guess that we could always just block on sight for all IP addresses that edit Pakistan articles solely. Would either of these proposals work? Cheers, Razorflame 16:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that would be worthwhile; at least one of them is a "school" of sorts, we do not want to block a school because of one disruptive editor. As for the others, yes we know the ranges, but again, range blocks are out of the question (possible collaterals, need to check, inappropriate to have a range-block for one editor). --Eptalon (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What about we institute a kind of block on sight for any IP address that the Pakistan editor uses from now on? If range blocks are out of the question, then the only thing that we can do is adopt a block on sight policy for any IPs making mass edits to Pakistan-related articles. Would this work? Razorflame 17:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandal-Used last warning

User talk:198.20.32.1  ←Kalajan→  16:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The IP hasn't made changes in several months. No action is necessary. –Juliancolton (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Why defend him, he vandalizes pages and dosen't listen to warnings.  ←Kalajan→  16:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The IP's last changes were in September. –Juliancolton (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

He vandalized about 5 mins ago. Are we in september? Quite cold huh? XP  ←Kalajan→  17:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? –Juliancolton (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Juliancolton here. We only block vandals if they have made significant vandalism to this site within the past 48 to 72 hours, not the past 3-4 months. Read Wikipedia:Vandalism first before posting anything about vandalism again. Razorflame 17:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I just realized. But at recent changes there was a link directing to his talk page. Dunno.  ←Kalajan→  17:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And IP addresses can be shared by millions of people, remember Soup Dish (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Right. G'day!  ←Kalajan→  17:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for the ban of Kalajan

Hi there all. While I believe that not everyone might agree with me on this, I would like to propose that we ban Kalajan from the Simple English Wikipedia for either a year or indefinitely. Ever since he or she (don't know what gender) has arrived on the Simple English Wikipedia, he has been nothing but a nuisance and has been a major disruption for the whole project. Furthermore, he has gotten completely out of line a number of times and I believe that enough is enough. Editors have tried to point him in the right direction, however, none of these attempts have been successful, and I highly doubt that a mentoring program here would work. Also, I worry about the current state of the Wikipedia, and I do not think that this editor is right for this project at this time. He has done nothing but stir up drama everyone he goes, and drama is something that we do not need on this Wikipedia at this point in time. Anyone else agree or disagree with what I have stated so far? Razorflame 20:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support great minds and all... Soup Dish (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - for reason see my talk page. --barras 20:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support Agree with the above. I'm not happy at all with this user. Majorly ^talk 20:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support I have been trying hard to AGF on this one since its clear people here believe in giving banned en users a second chance. But I really don't know about this one. -Djsasso (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: - How many votes are needed for consensus here? Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a vote... Majorly ^talk 20:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I echo that, all that really needs to happen is for an admin to see there is a desire for the community for a long/indef block. Admins have already been given the ability to make a call on these sorts or things. Asking the community here is mostly just a good will gesture so to speak to make sure the community supports it before they do it themselves. -Djsasso (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes are also evil according to Meta ;). This is to gauge community consensus on the situation. Currently, while there are indeed 4 votes in support of this proposal, it does not encompass the entire community's feelings on this issue. Cheers, Razorflame 20:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support We need to dispel the idea that Simple English Wikipedia is where all the banned users can hang out and roam free with their behaviour. This sort of behaviour from Kalajan is getting out of hand. Sorry, but either you clearly don't know what Wikipedia is for, or you're deliberately wasting our time. Either way, I'm not happy with your behaviour. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support - He's annoying, but there have been worse editors here who have not been banned. Suggest it's snowing... Kennedy ^(talk) 20:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - A low percentage of mainspace edits and persistant badgering of people to look at his essay. And as a side note they appear to have signatures on their user page of users that do not exist.... FSM ^Noodly? 20:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Sorry, but I've tried loads with this editor and even suggested adoption. I've given Kalajan all the instructions and information that he/she needs to state editing in mainspace, but they only seem interested in disrupting the board. I've washed my hands of them! fr33kman ^{t - c} 20:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Needs to be indef, we're not the second chance wiki. Cheers, RockManQ ^(talk) 22:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support I have tried everything with this user. It's amazing that I'm still not insane. Simon^KSK 22:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Break

Ok, now that we seem to be on the same page, how long should the block/ban be: 1 year of indefinitely? Razorflame 20:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Do you really think that he is a better user in one year? I think no. --> indefinite. --barras 20:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Done - Indef. Per consensus above. Kennedy ^(talk) 20:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I saw no words that said indef or a year or whatever. Now, first of all. I also am trying with this user but my efforts have only begun when the community started this discussion, I would like a little more time to try to turn him around, Please. I believe I can do, and since the user seems to have an interest in wrestling I believe I and Simon can be a Tag team, if after a while I believe it can't be done, I will support this users ban for a period of a year to turn around. I see promise in this user, and I do have strong beliefs that this user can be turned around with mentoring. Thoughts?-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 20:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I highly doubt that any sort of mentorship with this user will work. This user just isn't right for this project, and I highly doubt that he ever will. Razorflame 20:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I don't agree. 99% of the problems this wiki has is from continuing to give people multiple chances. -Djsasso (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with Djsasso. Kennedy ^(talk) 20:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

He showed up on the 10th (2 days ago) and your ready to ban him already?! That's hardly the second chance we're known to give he should at least get one more week to turn around. then propose the ban.-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 20:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering all of the disturbances that this user has given this community already, I highly doubt that he will change over the next week. Razorflame 20:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

He's has done things wrong yes, but he has not done enough wrong to warrant a ban after two day, If y'all had done the same with me, I hate the thought of it, and Razor you tried it. Why is he any different? He should get the full week,they're not called surprises for nothing.-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 20:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think its that attitude that is part of this wikis problem. We have a reputation for letting bad editors come here and run amuck without consequences. We need to curb that opinion of this wiki or it will never grow. This is the very reason many respectable editors don't come to this wiki. I have had more than a few people display utter shock that me and a few others here actually edit here because of how rediculous things get here. Since we are in a period of change I think its time to start making sure that we can do things to get rid of that attitude that we are here to fix bad editors. That isn't what we are here to do, we are here to build an encyclopedia in simple english. -Djsasso (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself, Djsasso. Cheers, Razorflame 20:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. We need to stop being pushovers on editors like this. This wiki is not a second chance wiki. It's not rehab. Either you can edit sensibly or you can't. Majorly ^talk 20:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree fr33kman ^{t - c} 20:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

CM16, my efforts have been going on since they got here almost; forget it. I honestly think that Kalajan didn't want to partake. You were a different story, you really and truly wanted to change (and you did it). I recently gave all the information of how to get going in mainspace with some articles and it just wasn't taken on board. I'm like you; I believe in second chances, I think many of us here do; but I saw no way forwards with this user. fr33kman ^{t - c} 20:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It absolutely sickens me that a user like FastReverter got a several chances over a period over 6 months and this user makes several small mistakes and get banned after two days. This is highly hypocritical of us. But fine. he's banned. And I never said let him run amuck, Djsasso, I said let him have mentoring over a week to let him have a chance to turn around.-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 21:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ty, btw, Fr33kman.-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 21:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I definitely think that mentorship would not work with this user. Razorflame 21:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, tried it; didn't care. CM16: You're welcome fr33kman ^{t - c} 21:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Tried it too. Didn't care at en. I guess it was my fault, cause I told him to come here, so he can shape up. Silly me. Simon^KSK 21:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Where's me stick! :-) fr33kman ^{t - c} 21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that is the point CM. Because we gave FastReverter so many chances it is clear that giving users chances without being "strict" for a lack of a better word isn't working. We are like parents who only ever tell their children they better behave or else and then never do anything about it, eventually the children learn they are empty threats. We need to stop giving chances when its clear they aren't going to be listened to. I know you never said run all over the place, but he already has run all over the place after being warned many times so the warnings he ignored were his chances. -Djsasso (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent for sanity) As someone who tried to work with Kalajan on EN, I eventually had to throw up my hands. Even when he says he listens to the advice others give him, he never follows it and does what he prefers. I had doubts that he would turn around after several of his blocks were overturned or reduced. It was inevitable. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Precisely my experience here. (Personally, I'm done with this discussion now, too many cycles and the users disrupted us enough) fr33kman ^{t - c} 21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And wouldn't you know it one of his suspected sock puppets User:Sinofdreams shows up when he gets blocked. Probably using a proxy since he is daring us to do a checkuser on him. -Djsasso (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I have blocked this puppet as well, since it showed up again right after I blocked a different obvious puppet which showed up right after we protected his talk page. -Djsasso (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of edits

OK, could someone tell me why this edit was reverted? It looks (relatively) legitimate to me, apart from tweaking the grammar. Thanks, MC8 (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Years shouldn't be linked. And the previous version was simpler is my guess. -Djsasso (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd be best asking Fr33kman instead of WP:ANI? Kennedy ^(talk) 19:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I made this revert (although I mis-clicked rollback when I meant to click undo and then provide an edit summary to explain. I was "undo"ing it because, as Djsasso said, the previous version was simpler (ceremony is not a BE850/1500 word) and we don't link dates. I admit it was supposed to be undo, but once clicked rollback does its thing without asking for further information. Since the net result was the same, I left it. I did, however, assume good faith, which is why I explained the situation about complex English to the new user rather than using a warning or notice tag (which could have been done as chaning from simple English to complex is against policy). Sorry if it caused offense, but in my defense it was the first mis-click with rollback I've ever had anywhere :) fr33kman ^{t - c} 19:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems fr33kman wants to follow the rules, but he is overdoing them, there IS NO RULE LINKS TO DATES ARE ILLEGAL, I have no problem with simple english but words like celebrities and ceremony ARE SIMPLE ENGLISH, but I did not revert them, I did fix CHRISTIAN KOREAN CHURCH, capital letters, is proper grammar. I also asked mr. fr33kman to look into rudolph valentino american-italian actor word but he is not responding, that is a legitimate edit!

Could this be the case? I think I may have been accused of being a vandal by User:Gohomegos here. Perhaps an admin could look into this? Thank you! fr33kman ^{t - c} 20:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems this user is working with somebody else, i did not accuse him of beinig vandal but revereting things out of the blue is vandalism, he removed all year links, ok, if that is the stupid rule but then he should have taken away link to 1924 to be fair!

Yes there is a rule that dates should not be linked out of context like you did in that article. As for not unlinking the other, he may just not have noticed. Secondly the word celebrity and ceremony are not really simple english. I think you need to calm down a bit. -Djsasso (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who has had the pleasure of deaing with Freddy should recognize his traits: calling anyone who disagrees with him a vandal, defending his work by saying "duh" a lot, poor command of the English language, accusations of conspiracies against him, fixation on boxing topics, insistence that a variety of historical figures were poisoned, etc. Look at the variety of edits made by Roadd, Errorswhat, Ototruth, Freakshows, and many others, which should show he has a history of disruptive, poorly written edits and block evasion.MKil (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

User:Gohomegos is confirmed to be a sockpuppet of banned user Freddy and has been blocked accordingly. Majorly ^talk 21:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You might want to check out some of the other users I mentioned. I'm pretty sure they are socks, too.MKil (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

Nevermind. I see you were on top of them days ago. Thanks for all your work policing this troublesome person.MKil (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

My pleasure. Majorly ^talk 21:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt assistance in this matter Majorly; thank you to MKil also. fr33kman ^{t - c} 21:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Haemophilia vandalism

Hi, just wondering if this and this is due to the same person? The article probably needs protecting for a little bit as it has been attacked 5 times just recently. Thanks fr33kman ^{t - c} 01:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Conflict between 2 users and possible edit war

Please take a look at here. I would like to get opinions from a few admins first before I decide what to do. Thanks. Chenzw  Talk  05:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have left a statement on your talk page, but overall it does not seem to be our problem (what they do on en); note that the association of usernames and IPs are a possible violation of the priv policy; and accusing somone of stalking is a possible Personal attack unless it can be proved. --Eptalon (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Mail from Kalajan

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 at 11:22:40, Kalajan sent me an email stating, "Yah, so I leave forever? No, I'll return in a few months, and noone will suspect me." Hazardous Matt thinks that a few months will be next week for Kalajan. It also might be good to mention that Kalajan was under a proxy ban when he came to enwiki. So, socks are definitely coming. On happier news, who watched Friday the 13th? Simon^KSK 14:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

We can see his behavior at this time. We can't stop him. He can create a new account. Either we notice this the new user is the same like Kalajan or we don't notice it and then all is OK. --barras 18:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Freddy?

Hi, could this be the banned user Freddy with a new sock? fr33kman ^{t - c} 22:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Papa Johns78

Based on this and this could an admin kindly review whether or not talk page protection is warranted? Thank you fr33kman ^{t - c} 22:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Eastvillagegroupie

User is admin shopping to try and get her talk page deleted (request has been declined already) and has even moved the page. For more background, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes Precious Roy (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The page move has been reverted as User:Eastvillagegroupie2 doesn't exist. fr33kman ^{t - c} 23:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

talk page

above user is constantly bohtering me/watching me and I would like my talk page deleted as well as my user page, this pestering is out of control. I feel harassed. Eastvillagegroupie (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You have to wait until an Admin decide. --Barras (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally, we do not delete talk pages unless there is either no reason for it to be on here or it is an old talk page that could be deleted to free up resources for our other users to use. Your talk page is neither of those things. Razorflame 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Same, talk pages do not get deleted. Sometimes they can if you are leaving forever, and will never return. m:Right to Vanish. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks

but for info on this user abusing my privacy, see admin comment here http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Precious_Roy&diff=1362347&oldid=1360478 Eastvillagegroupie (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Eastvillagegroupie was the first one to link this account with the Tweety21 account on en.wiki (and thus all associated IPs) with her edit here. Precious Roy (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Minorly

I have unblocked User:Minorly after his request. His username is not necessarily aimed at Majorly, and is not really similar. Therefore I am assuming good faith, and have unblocked him. Feel free to undo at the first sign I am wrong. Regards, Kennedy ^(talk) 13:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I will agf as well, but I think its a very obvious aim at Majorly. So much so I thought that this topic was about Majorly before I read it. -Djsasso (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact come to think of it I bet its one of Sinofdreams socks since majorly has blocked a few of them over the last few days. -Djsasso (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I did notice some vandalism from a user of the same name on en.wiki to Majorly's page, so it's looking likely. I will monitor closely. Afterall, it could just all be a huge coincidence... Kennedy ^(talk) 14:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Old userpages of indef blocked users

If you look in Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Blocked, there are many old pages of indef blocked users that are now useless. Some are even over a year old. Should we be deleting these old pages? EnWP deletes old userpages of indef blocked users after about a month. See en:CAT:TWU. Note that pages for sockpuppets and banned users should be kept. I was thinking that it would be a good idea if we did the same.--Fairfield Deleted? 17:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to make sense doesn't it? Unless, or course, there are strong reasons for keeping the evidence around. I'm all for clean-up fr33kman ^{t - c} 17:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless there are some major issues with people doing this, I don't see any reasons why this shouldn't be allowed at this point in time. Cheers, Razorflame 17:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Just not the talk pages. -Djsasso (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you really shouldn't be deleting the talk pages of any users whether indef blocked or not. Also, you should probably leave the IP address talk pages alone as well. Cheers, Razorflame 17:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've created the category CAT:TWU which will be placed on pages with {{blocked}} on them. Pages over one month old except for talkpages, sockpuppets and sockpuppeteers, and IPs should be deleted.--Fairfield Deleted? 18:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Page protection - Meaning of life

Hi, can an admin please review whether or not they feel Meaning of life needs a 24hr protection put on it? It's had quite a few nonsense or poor quality changes today, more than in months of normal editing. Thank you fr33kman ^{t - c} 20:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done for 12 hours. –Juliancolton (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

Hi. Can I have permission to use AWB please? I want to do some semi-auto edits. I have permission on enWP, Thanks! :) fr33kman ^{t - c} 22:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done -Djsasso (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much; should have asked before I decided to change over 230 articles from External links to Other websites ;) fr33kman ^{t - c} 03:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Anna Kournikova

Hi there all,

the article Anna Kournikova is this week at the main page and some IPs do vandalism on this article. A semi-protect for this page until Sunday could be useful. Regards, Barras (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Protection will expire in 5 days (Sunday).--Fairfield Deleted? 21:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Freddy may be back as IP

Hi, re: this and this, Freddy is claiming to be back. fr33kman ^{t - c} 23:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Usurp request for User:Ethan

I have the SUL account Ethan and would like to usurp the inactive user Ethan (talk • contribs) on this wiki for unification. Identity-confirming post on my home wiki is here. -Ethan (talk) • 2009-02-17 02:43 (UTC)

Hi there, Ethan. Please visit Our changing username page and place this request there. That is where usurp requests go. Thanks, Razorflame 02:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't find whether/where there was a particular page for it before. Thanks, have added it there. -Ethan (talk) • 2009-02-17 05:52 (UTC)

No problems. This would've been the next best place to have requested your change of name :). Cheers, Razorflame 19:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposals for semi-protection

I would like to propose temporary semi-protection for a period of 48 hours for this page and a period of 24 hours of semi-protection for the article Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours (unless the user in question was already blocked). Thanks, Razorflame 00:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree!! fr33kman ^{t - c} 00:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to propose permanent semi-protection for Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, as IPs do not need to edit that page. Razorflame 00:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected Wikipedia for 24 hours in light of IP hopping, but not VIP. New users can report vandals too. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course they can; I just wanted to prevent IPs from being able to edit that page. *headdesk* Semi-protection would prevent new users from reporting vandals....*headdesk* Razorflame 00:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And why would you want that? Hehe...-- Tdxiang 06:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Emach1s

I'd say that this is our A1a2s friend back with a different account and now doing as he promised, vandalising, per: this. fr33kman ^{t - c} 20:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Note, this is currently waiting investigation here. Lingamondo (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Confirmed and blocked by User:Djsasso, User:Majorly, and User:Eptalon. However, I presume the user will continue to make further socks, and a range block could be considered if it persists. Lingamondo (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Why 1 month for the sock master? Simon^KSK_{Contradict me...} 20:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

see above; blocvked indef for socking. --Eptalon (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Drastic measures to save this project

Simple Wikipedia, for whatever reason, is seen as the dumping ground of banned/blocked users from EN. I propose any block or ban on EN also counts here. Drastic? Yes! But needed, I personally think so. Soup Dish (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There is actually a discussion about this on my talk page and freekman had a good solution for this. I believe he is going to write up a proposal. I would like an outright counting of blocks and bans from en going forward (ie current users not affected). However freekman mentioned we could have a Requests for account page or something like that set up for those blocked/banned users so we have to evaluate them before letting them edit instead of just letting them edit right away. -Djsasso (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd like to read the proposal first, but, I think I'd like to see it implemented, even to the current users here. But determine access on a case by case basis. (i.e. Each on their own merits.) Meaning that banned users active here might lose their editing priveledges. Kennedy ^(talk) 15:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Another idea is trialled editing. Fine, they can edit, and if it's constructive, why not? But at the first sign of trouble, they should be dealt with swiftly and firmly. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I also agree with that idea. I just want to make sure we stop giving umpteen chances. We need to clean up the reputation of this wiki. A large number of the close votes for this wiki are coming from people with the perception this is just a dumping ground for ens trash editors. -Djsasso (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Perhaps I am shouting into the forest here:

• Same chance for everyone at the start, no backgound check
• When it comes to blocking (because of bad behaviour/bad edits), check EnWP for bans. If the user is banned/known repeat customer there, they will get one chance, after their first block; Forfeiting the chance will incur a 6 month block.
• System is only for "named user", as it is too costly for IP editors.

Comments? --Eptalon (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, except on occasion it's hard to ignore. Users who have blown their chances at enwiki come over here as if they've simply moved on. They sometimes make this clear. Would they be here if they weren't banned at en? I think not. I'm not speaking of any one editor, by the way, just of a general trend I've noticed. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No. There have been users who have been banned at enWP. They have come here, and they have showed ability to edit civilly. ChristianMan is most likely our best example. Simon^KSK 16:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And he is an extremely rare case (in fact I can't think of another), and even he has caused some major drama in his time here. As Eptalon mentioned the one chance would be an acceptable method as well, its the chance after chance after mentor plan after chance that is the problem. To be honest I think its the fact that we act as a dumping ground which will get us closed far faster than not being able to identify what Simple English is or having all our articles perfect etc. -Djsasso (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What about me? I'm banned on EN, and I don't think I've really been trolling... Steve^Talk 10:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of the current proposals that have been presented thus far, however, I like PeterSymonds plan the best because it is far more pratical than the other plans that have been outlined on this page. Cheers, Razorflame 17:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

All are good proposals and I think it is good that we are all concerned about this and are thinking about it. I think it is important to minimize the disruptive impact that banned users coming over from enWP have on our community. To this end, a one chance proposal is probably good with a ban for 3 or 6 months if they blow it; then a indef ban if they blow the second chance after being unbanned within 6 months of the unbanning. I'd also recommend that the admins be given the "right" (which they actually already have) to ban these users at their discretion and only their discretion. This would stop disruption by having to hold a banning proposal every time it is needed. (Established users being banned would still go through a normal proposal). If they can make it a full 9 months without being blocked (also 9 months after being blocked for violating the one strike rule) then they would become established users and go through the normal block/ban procedure. Thoughts? fr33kman ^{t - c} 17:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We'd need to have a standard warning in place for people to receive prior to being banned, perhaps given to them upon account creation when we first notice they are banned at enWP. Perhaps also the commmunity would be consulted about lifting the 3/6 months first strike ban?? (Just an idea)fr33kman ^{t - c} 17:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course we need to establish some rules, but please note:

• Bans/blocks longer than 6 months are mostly pointless.
• I say one chance after their first block - This means the first time they get blocked for 1 day/2 days/whatever, and from then on, each block is 6 months (or 3 months, depend on the time we settle on); without needing to keep track of much info.

What we need is a system that is easy to administrate, and needs little extra info. Just a question: do you remember any users you blocked 9 months ago? - In oder not to clutter this here, have a look at User:Eptalon/bannedUser (which should be a proposed guideline, once we are done). Edit to your liking. --Eptalon (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, let's off page the discussion over to User talk:Eptalon/bannedUser. As a note; I've never blocked anyone as I'm not an admin anywhere (my efforts have always been editing and mediation of disputes). :) fr33kman ^{t - c} 19:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely cannot believe this is being discussed again. I thank Simon for beinging up the fact that not all banned users are bad and I'm one case, and I thank Djsasso for establishing that I'm an extremely rare case, but anyway, I agree, there should be a review committee like thing to review banned users on a case by case basses to determine they're restrictions, so to say, for example, one ban user gets approved by the committee for no restrictions and another gets the aforementioned restriction about 2 post above me. Thoughts?-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 20:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Already in action

Majorly and I discussed Betacommand briefly a few days or so ago (Beta has a long history on en of making semi-automated edits while making numerous errors in the process). He was given several off wiki chances, and was blocked by Majorly for making edits that appeared to be from a script/bot. In an effort to show good faith he was unblocked to allow further editing, and the chance to request bot status. He failed to do so. I reblocked him indef. From now on, we have to explore a type of zero tolerance trial, such as PeterSymonds suggests above. My one preference, is that if they continue to do what they were blocked/banned for on en, here, they get the same treatment. No more rehabilitation. Synergy 20:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, I was watching him over the last few days and wasn't sure about him. Had no idea that it was Betacommand. If it was then yup I support ths decission. -Djsasso (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with you Synergy. If they were blocked over on the English Wikipedia, and they continue doing what they did over there here, then they should be blocked right away. Razorflame 22:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

yes when I first started editing I made some errors, I fixed those and have been correcting errors as I see them, if you have issues everyone knows where my talk page is. Im glad to discuss it with you and address your concern. Ringkjøbing (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

Hello, quick question: Are redirects like these allowed? Thanks, Kennedy ^(talk) 09:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Since we have projects in user space it would probably fall into "no redirects to User space" rule; Wikiprojects are there to coordinate editors writing on a common subject. I therefore think we should consider this to be an exception to this rule (other projects don't have Wikiprojects in U-space). Of course, a conscious decision one way or another would be nice. --Eptalon (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. As you say, it does fall into that rule, but I'm fine with exceptions. Thanks Kennedy ^(talk) 11:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Since there is no Wikiprojects in project space, I would nuke it personally. Otherwise we might as well have the project in project space to begin with. -Djsasso (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done QD'ed as per then QD:U2 rule for deletion. Cheers, Razorflame 22:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You should notify the proper people of discussions like this. New discussion on WP:ST about this.-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 08:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

User page warnings

Is there a policy about users removing warning messages from their talk pages? Like this User talk:75.47.154.196 --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There is none at the moment, but given the activity going on on that page, I will consider it edit warring and will hence semi-protect it for a while. Chenzw  Talk  07:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Current policy on EN is to allow warnings to be removed; I will blank the page and remove protection; in the future, just let the IP remove warnings on his page. Chenzw  Talk  07:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Helpfulness

OK, so I'm fairly new here, but if there's any help I can do (apart from reverting vandalism, the obvious one!!), feel free to let me know. I'll most likely be online Friday or Saturday editing here if I can, most likely then. AC --Sunstar NW XP (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Samlaptop85213

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Recently unblocked user has created the page Banned, continues to have "I love vandalism" on his talk page, dispite asking to be an admin. Perhaps the one-strike rule here? fr33kman ^{t - c} 19:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

He's very close to an indef block, is all I can say. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Coming off from a block and more misbehaviour? Why are we putting up with this? Majorly ^talk 19:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, a line has to be drawn. fr33kman ^{t - c} 19:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Block/Ban Proposal

I think that at this point, I can't see Samlaptop a) being a positive contributor and b) in any way an asset to this project. I really think he deserves a block or ban of some type. Shapiros10 23:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Shapiros10 23:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Simon^KSK 23:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Weak Support – doesn't appear to want to help. Loving vandalism doesn't make me sympathetic. TheAE talk 23:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Majorly ^talk 23:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
5. support fr33kman ^{t - c} 23:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Razorflame 00:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Strong support Wasted all his four chances here. - Æåm Fætsøn ^{/ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/} 07:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

How exactly does his creation of banned show him as being unproductive and worthy of being banned? Either way (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not just that creation. He/she is literally just off block; and has done very little to help the project. The community has had too much disruption lately and a user who is just off block, stated previously "vandalism m ... I love vandalism" and then creates a vandal page and asks to become an admin (and files an RFA) just isn't setting the right tone. We don't need it; and frankly we need to set a few precedents also. seWP has gotten a rep for being soft on bad users (because we were) and this is got to stop! fr33kman ^{t - c} 23:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is how is that page a "vandal page" as you state? Either way (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you read it before it was deleted? I did and so did the admin (PeterSymonds) who deleted it. We both considered it vandalism. It wasn't a testpage, the user knows how to create pages; it was vandalism. Coming straight off of a block and doing that, plus goading the community with an RFA, adding that he wanted to be an admin to lots of different places (including WP:ADMIN [which is just wrong] is enough). Any user coming off of a block whould know that an RFA is out of the question, and they should know that vandalising the project is also a bad idea. I think we all admire your intentions, but the community has had a hard time with blocked users, banned users from enWP and with vandals lately. fr33kman ^{t - c} 00:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Per consensus above, and his own request, I've blocked Sam indefinitely. Majorly ^talk 18:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sniper

Sniper has had a lot of IP changes over the last few days. Many have not been helpful and have had to be reverted. Could an admin review the need for semi protection for 48 hours or so? Thanks fr33kman ^{t - c} 01:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've protected it until Sunday. The article is on the Main Page this week, so until Sunday, it will be getting high amounts of vandalism. Cheers,--Fairfield Deleted? 01:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Lick

Can someone please look over the article "lick"? I am new to Wikipedia and I'd like for someone to look over it. Thanks in advance! 71.201.88.178 (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The article you wrote on "Lick" was fine, but the simple english wikipedia is not a dictionary. If you would like to write about what words mean, please use the . [english wiktionary]--Peterdownunder (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Christianity related issues

"edit war"/POV pushing

Phentos (talk · contribs) made this edit to Christianity earlier tonight, claiming he was "cleaning up the biased article". I reverted the edit saying the article wasn't biased before until he made the edit (I thought it made the article atheistic), he proceeded to revert me, so I reverted back, we then got into a discussion on the articles talk page. During which I notified RyanCross. He told me to come here if need be. The user during the conversation explained his edit, he claimed the article was stating the facts as if we believed them and thus made the article biased. He last reverted me and said he was going to bad, so, I reached my 3RR with one last revert with a edit summary saying that there is obviously a dispute so the original version must stand till the dispute is resolved. Am I wrong, or is this guy POV pushing?-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 07:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about Christianity, so cannot comment on that. But you are just as bad if you reverted so many times. You even say yourself that because he was going to bed you reverted after that. You're not meant to try to "win" the war, you're meant to stop it, and come to an amicable agreement. Kennedy ^(talk) 08:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I read the change. Here's my view: I agree with Phentos. I think his change is actually less POV than your change. He writes that Jesus is believed to be the Son of God and a prophet. You write that he is the Son of God and the almighty prophet. Lets look at this using a different example:

• Ronaldinho is commonly thought to be one of the best football players in the world.
• Ronaldinho is the best football player in the world.

Which do you think is less POV? Same idea with Jesus. Is Jesus the best football player, or is he believed to be the best football player in the world? Kennedy ^(talk) 12:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO, both diffs don't make much difference in terms of neutrality. The excerpt clearly states "To Christians, Jesus Christ is a teacher...", therefore sustaining a neutral POV. I would prefer the previous version though as there is more content and a ref. I believe that Phentos was merely trying to simplify the paragraph. Correct me if you think I am wrong. Chenzw  Talk  12:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Chenzw, is right the original version does say "To Christians". To me, taking that out, like Phentos did, takes it from neutral to Atheistic.-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 18:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issues

Hello all, I want to being some attention to Christianity and its NPOV. An IP, 134.161.227.84 (talk · contribs) has added Category:Mythology to it, saying therefore that is a myth (but argues that "myth" can also be a general dictionary idea...). Also, the user added that Jesus (an un-disputed real-person) is only a "character", and therefore fictional. To avoid that particular dispute, I changed "character", to simply the center of the New Testament, and the IP reverted regardless. Both additions are from the IP's POV: Christianity (and not other religions) being simply a myth, and Jesus being fictional. This needs outside discussion. I have semi-protected the page for now, until this discussion is over. Thank you. TheAE talk 22:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for a reference, I started something similar above.-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 22:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am noting for reference here that I have reworded the sentence in question so that it says "Jesus of Nazareth is featured in the New Testament, which is part of the Bible, a book that Christians view as sacred" or something close to that. I'm going by memory here but this should be close. LovesMacs (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine. But, "featured" isn't a simple word. So, I have changed it "...is written about...", which is easier to understand. I agree with what you said, though. TheAE talk 00:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the passage a little, and added an external Reference (Tacitus, Annales). It is not difficult at all to find an external source of Jesus being executed; this does however not tell about his teachings. As to Cat:Mythology, I guess this could be added to any religion (What did we do with the Ancient Roman, or Ancient Greek belief systems?) - So please do not attach too much importance to the category. Anyway, given the IP edits "productively", has anyone suggested yet they create an account?--Eptalon (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-) I added Cat:Mythology as a parent to Cat:Religion; to those who do not believe in a particular religion the teachings/texts of that religion must look like mythology. --Eptalon (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you honestly calling Jesus an undisputed real person? It is extremely disputed that he was a real person, one of the most prevalent theorys is that he was just created as a character to explain the beliefs that christians believed in and that over time it was forgotten that it was just a story and people started taking it literally. If it were modern day for example, that his stories were just various brochures that were passed out to people. -Djsasso (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Tacitus' Annales; someone was executed when P.Pilate was in charge of the region (iudaea) - So Jesus being a real person is not the issue; the issue is: Without recurring to Biblical/Christian texts, you will likely not be able to show what he did. Jesus was a person who could convince people to die horrible deaths for what they believed. Jesus was (to some extent) a threat to the order of the Romans there, that is the likely reason why he was executed. To take more recent examples, look at Mahatma Gandhi or Benazir Bhutto: Both died a violent death, and at some point in their lives they were a threat to respective government. TO some extent it is difficult to talk about Bhutto or Gandhi without talking about their political motivations. The same is probably true for Jesus.--Eptalon (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've always had a theory that the bible is just a novel written to try to explain how we came about. "Harry Potter and the Son of God" anyone? Kennedy ^(talk) 13:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Titus Flavius Josephus (a Jewish/Roman secular historian) writes about Jesus in the history called "The Antiquities of the Jews"see: paragraph 3 and confirms he existed and was even known as "The Christ". This book was written in circa 94CE. Jesus' existance is confirmed by many sources; whether he was the son of God is something for faith. The article Christianity should be about the history of the religion and about what the religion teaches. It should contain critism of the religion but it should not be a debate over whether the religion is the truth or not; that would be original research. Statements should be along the lines of "Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and devine" but not "Jesus is the Son of God and devine". So it should be about what Christians believe, but not present those beliefs as fact. My 2p worth fr33kman ^{t - c} 14:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fr33kman; the article should describe the beliefs and practices of Christianity, and it should include a section on criticism. Pro/anti Christian views should however be marked as such and not be given too much weight. LovesMacs (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan editor... again... and again

Seriously, are we going to let him create a few hundred articles about Pakistan's relationships with the whole world? This is getting ridiculous; we need to establish some form of notability guideline here. Suggestions? Chenzw  Talk  12:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

How about we go through them all and delete and semi-protect the articles. He would need to register to edit them. Which he won't do. I know it would take a while, but a bot could salt all Pakistan and x relations? Kennedy ^(talk) 13:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A bot? :O Maybe you mean a script instead? (and you deleted them as G1 OMG) Chenzw  Talk  13:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, we can add the regex to the title blacklist (and enable autoconfirmed users to create them). Thoughts? Chenzw  Talk  13:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, wouldn't both work? (ec) Blacklisting would be a good idea... I see your point about G1, perhaps another reason would be preferable. Kennedy ^(talk) 13:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Both would work, but salting is too time consuming (a few hundred :P) and becomes a problem when you want to unsalt them. Chenzw  Talk  13:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Other idea, find one or two other people who also write about Pakistan/India/Bangladesh-related topics; that might "solve" POV-pushing problems...--Eptalon (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

*ding*....at your service (if they have to do with geography). Razorflame 15:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at their contributions, most seem geography related; As you are not from there, there might be quite some reading up on those topics. As to Kashmir-related subjects we should stay as neutral as possible (and use official terms wherever possible). I was more thinking that one of the numerous new editor perhaps had a background from there. --Eptalon (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Freddy?

Per these I'm wondering if this is Freddy considering he said he made John Paul II a VGA, and this is one of Freddies known articles. ?? fr33kman ^{t - c} 22:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is. Majorly ^talk 23:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)