Revision as of 15:31, 8 April 2007 editSir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled18,508 editsm Protected User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington: trolling by kuntan socks ← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:18, 9 April 2007 edit undoSir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled18,508 edits →Question.: commentNext edit → | ||
Line 154: | Line 154: | ||
:*As for the protection of the page, a range of IPs has been used disruptively on this article, I suggest that you ask your friend to get himself an article and then edit legitimately to absolve himself from sockpuppetry accussations. This article has a history of disruptive editing, hence the semi-protection. | :*As for the protection of the page, a range of IPs has been used disruptively on this article, I suggest that you ask your friend to get himself an article and then edit legitimately to absolve himself from sockpuppetry accussations. This article has a history of disruptive editing, hence the semi-protection. | ||
:*Best wishes, — ] ] 11:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | :*Best wishes, — ] ] 11:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
::Firstly, assuming that a random IP is 'my friend' is deeply disturbing. On AN/I Nirav has just blown up at another admin for something similar. Second, I am well aware of the restrictions on livin person's biographies, thank you. I regularly work on BLP patrol. In this case, the matter itself is not irrelevant to a Modi article, as the issue was an apparent assassination attempt on him, and it has led to direct attacks on Modi's personal leadership on the floor of the State legislature. That the section was inaccurately titled does not lead to the statement "it does not belong in the article", which is your edit comment. Note also that this article is not particularly vandalised, a few days of very anaemic warring - in which I have not participated - is at best shaky support for semi-protection, not full protection. ] 21:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | :::Firstly, assuming that a random IP is 'my friend' is deeply disturbing. On AN/I Nirav has just blown up at another admin for something similar. Second, I am well aware of the restrictions on livin person's biographies, thank you. I regularly work on BLP patrol. In this case, the matter itself is not irrelevant to a Modi article, as the issue was an apparent assassination attempt on him, and it has led to direct attacks on Modi's personal leadership on the floor of the State legislature. That the section was inaccurately titled does not lead to the statement "it does not belong in the article", which is your edit comment. Note also that this article is not particularly vandalised, a few days of very anaemic warring - in which I have not participated - is at best shaky support for semi-protection, not full protection. ] 21:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
:::The encounter is a criticism of members of the police force which are a small part of the modi government. If you had taken even a minimal read of BLP, you would see criticism: | ::::The encounter is a criticism of members of the police force which are a small part of the modi government. If you had taken even a minimal read of BLP, you would see criticism: | ||
{{cquote|should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on guilt by association.}} |
{{cquote|should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on guilt by association.}} | ||
<b>]]</b> 22:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | ::::<small>taken from ].</small> <b>]]</b> 22:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
::::So criticism of the Iraq War as illegitimate doesnt belong in the Bush article? It's there, and good luck removing it. I cant see any other option to accepting that notable criticism of a government is relevant to the biography of the head of that government, especially when the criticism in question leads for demands for that head's resignation. However, I congratulate you on actually reading BLP for a change. ] 22:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | :::::So criticism of the Iraq War as illegitimate doesnt belong in the Bush article? It's there, and good luck removing it. I cant see any other option to accepting that notable criticism of a government is relevant to the biography of the head of that government, especially when the criticism in question leads for demands for that head's resignation. However, I congratulate you on actually reading BLP for a change. ] 22:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
:::::Bush is commander-in-chief. More or less, he ordered the troops to attack Iraq, and as the head of the army that he led to war (leadership is relative but the best term here), he is held responsible for the results of the war. Modi OTOH did not order fake encounters, nor is he the chief of police (the people accused in the wrongful deaths). Neither is he the head of a nation at war. People have always demanded modi's resignation, and if you had read the source would have seen that it was a couple of disaffected BJP members and retired men without ] making a ruckus.<b>]]</b> 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | ::::::Bush is commander-in-chief. More or less, he ordered the troops to attack Iraq, and as the head of the army that he led to war (leadership is relative but the best term here), he is held responsible for the results of the war. Modi OTOH did not order fake encounters, nor is he the chief of police (the people accused in the wrongful deaths). Neither is he the head of a nation at war. People have always demanded modi's resignation, and if you had read the source would have seen that it was a couple of disaffected BJP members and retired men without ] making a ruckus.<b>]]</b> 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
:The fact that it is being used by disaffected members of the state party against Modi's leadership is precisely why it is arguably relevant. We cannot exclude things as irrelevant per BLP if reliable sources say that they are being considered to be relevant by notable individuals; the fact that it led to suspension of the Gujarat assembly might lead to it being considered notable. In addition, the assassination attempt itself was considered relevant to the Modi article, so the fact that it appears to have been invented might be considered relevant as well. ] 19:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I'm still waiting for a response to my queries on semi-protection vs full protection, and a clarification of the 'friend' statement. ] 19:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
:*I was under the impression that we would be continuing this conversation on ]. In any case, it is not Times of India or any other press publisher that can paste guilt on Narendra Modi, for that matter. The NHRC, the National Human Rights Commission is the sole authority with that right. As of now, it seems that it has absolved Narendra Modi of taking an active part in organisation of any kind of pogrom/genocide/murder. | |||
:*George Bush? That's a strawman, m'dear. Bush is the commander-in-chief of the army and there ''is'' clear ''evidence'' that he lead the American army into Afghanistan and Iraq. Suggest you stick to what's relevant here. | |||
:*Article semi-protection? Narendra Modi is an article prone to defamatory vandalism/libel and I have chosen to protect it in the wake of such incidents happening regularly. There are some other articles permanently semi-protected for such reasons. | |||
:*Friend statement? Aren't we all friends? And please, avoid sarcastic statements towards other respectable members of our community, like you taunted Bakad00d, up there. Chao. — ] ] 12:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
== My RfB == | == My RfB == |
Revision as of 12:18, 9 April 2007
|
MessagesArchives: The Basement · My desk · My Barnstars ThanksBefore I go and whip up some whiz-bang template to thank users for their support, I'd like to thank you for nominating me. The RFA passed at 89/1/1, which means I am now an administrator. Now, if it weren't for the time zone difference, I wouldn't have been trying out these 'shiny' buttons in the early hours of this morning. (It's now 7:30am and I'm up for round 2 of Mike v CSD :D) Just leave me a note if I do something really silly, ok? Cheers and have a nice day. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
5 minutes of fameI expect you've had this pointed out 1,000 times already by now, but just in case - did you know that you were mentioned on the radio? fraggle 14:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
HeyaOh, that sucks! I'll see you around then, I'll try to do the gtalk thing sometime. :) – Riana 15:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject India Newsletter: Volume II, Issue 2 - March 2007
OversightedI've oversighted the edits. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Narendra ModiSmart move.Bakaman 16:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Death of Bob WoolmerI have moved this page back to it's original heading - if you wish it to move moved, can you please discuss it on the talkpage. Many thanks, Davnel03 16:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
My RfAThank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. As I have now gone 36 hours without either deleting the main page or blocking Jimbo, all should be well. --Anthony.bradbury 15:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Question.There's a note from an anon on my talkpage. Is it of any importance? I don't see any conversation either on your talkpage, or in the archives, or in the appropriate page's archives, to indicate what on earth is going on. Could you also explain your protection of the Narendra Modi article. Hornplease 20:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
My RfBI'm confused by your opposition on my RfB. Is there any reason why you don't want me to be a bureaucrat? You say "I'd rather see you continue your work as a dirty rouge admin than a diplomat or a politician." Well, if I was promoted, I would definitely continue my admin work. A bureaucrat, is however a job I feel I could do well, and to oppose because you'd rather I worked as an admin confused me. Will you please explain? Thanks. Majorly (o rly?) 11:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
UsernameblockHi, I have a link above to a user you blocked for having an inappropriete username. I think, unless this user is a sockpuppet, has made repeated inappropriete edits(except in extreme or unusual circumstances), or has a history of repeated malicious account creation, I think the account creation block should be lifted, only blocking the user, not the ability a to create a new account from the IP that the account originated from.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Also, I was just curious what about "Cool cat" that other people find inappropriete?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 17:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC) It's been cleared up WJBscribe and Alison. Too familer to existing user and no need to create new account. Sorry for the confustion.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 06:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Majorly's RfBHi Nick, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support, and I do intend to run again eventually. Thanks again for switching, it means a lot to me. See you around! Majorly (o rly?) 03:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Stop abusing your powersIn future, use common sense before you use buttons. And when you do misuse your buttons, atleast have the courtesy to leave messages on the blockees' pages explaining your actions. Thanks. Sarvagnya 17:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC) My RfAHi, my RfA has been successful. Thanks a lot for your support. :) --soum (0_o) 10:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
|