User talk:DJ Clayworth

All New: (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Newpages&limit=500&offset=0) 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Newpages&limit=500&offset=500) 10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Newpages&limit=500&offset=1000) 15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Newpages&limit=500&offset=1500) 20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Newpages&limit=500&offset=2000) 25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Newpages&limit=500&offset=2500) 30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Newpages&limit=500&offset=3000) 35 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Newpages&limit=500&offset=3500) 40 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Newpages&limit=500&offset=4000) Orphaned: (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Lonelypages&limit=500&offset=0) 500 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Lonelypages&limit=500&offset=500) 1001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Lonelypages&limit=500&offset=1000) 1501 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Lonelypages&limit=500&offset=1500)

Old talk moved to:

Please add comments at the bottom of the page.

24.115.30.42

Yeoman's work combatting the spam on Alexander the Great. How do we get that IP banned for a few days? I can do it on my own Wiki, but who has the power here? Lectiodifficilior

Actually, I haven't been experimenting with Wikipedia...

In fact, I've been tagging nonsense pages for speedy deletion. I didn't create those contentless "boobie" articles, if that's what you're referring to. I found them in new pages and tried to tag one of them for deletion. Now, apparently, an admin has deleted all of them. I think there may be a problem with the wiki software, since this has happened to me before. 151.199.192.102 17:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. I must have misread the history. Carry on the good work. DJ Clayworth 18:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Pakistan census

Thanks. I was editing the Pakistan talk page, but hadn't hit the Save page button yet. I followed the link that you mentioned and looked at it. They don't explain where they got their numbers, which are inconsistent with accepted census data (http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/other_tables/pop_by_religion.pdf). AnalyticHistorian 09:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

This is true, and I changed the data to reflect this. I think under the circumstances it is perfectly possible that the census underrepresents Christians. DJ Clayworth 04:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Pakistan: Section on Status of Christians

I had to remove the text as it was copyrighted. I just want to tell you that I have no judgement on the content of the section. My objection here is that the content placed is copyrighted and taken from another website. ~~Please do not just copy and paste from websites in creating content, that violates the Wikipedia's code of conduct.~~ Thanks. --Ragib 06:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

If you are referring to the one sentence that I put in the article on Pakistan then a) it's one sentence. That's a legitimate quote. b) It's US government. DJ Clayworth 00:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

My profound apologies. I should have been careful about checking who put the copyrighted content there. It turns out that it was put there by SamTr014 (talk • contribs), sorry for the mixup. In any case, I removed the content as it was copy righted. I did not remove the stats and info you placed there. Sorry once again, and hope there is no hard feelings. --Ragib 01:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted. No hard feelings. DJ Clayworth 04:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi,
You removed the NPOV-dispute tag with the comment, "remove tag on an entirely uncontroversial section." I've restored the NPOV flag to the section. The objection is explained on the talk page:

The following statement is non-NPOV and uses weasel words: "However, there have been numerous allegations that Christians in Pakistan have been subject to systematic persecution." 68.20.214.76 12:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC) No one is saying that Christians do not face challenges in a society that is over 96% Muslim. But there are no laws or policies whose purpose is to persecute Christians. The elite of the country is sympathetic to Christians, having been mostly educated in CHristian schools - both the President and the Prime Minister attended Christian schools and colleges. Most of Pakistan's nurses are Christian. The general population is not much aware of Christian-related issues, except when Christians are attacked by terrorists. When there was an attack on nurses in the northern Punjab, for example, there was a huge outpouring of sympathy from the local population there. Many thousands came to offer their condolences. People in Pakistan mostly have a fovorable view of these dedicated educationists and health workers, and because of them, Christians in general. That is why I would say there is no systematic persecution of Christians. 68.20.214.76 13:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I grew up in Pakistan, and attended Christian schools and went to a Christian college there. My feeling is that relations between Muslims and Christians are on the whole warm and friendly. Note that I am not saying that there haven't been allegations that Christians have been persecuted in Pakistan. I am objecting to the lack of a neutrality and balance - the other side of the picture is not presented. 68.20.31.13 13:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I wrote what I wrote because we needed something to go in a section that had been entirely eliminated due to copyright violation. It was the most neutral thing I could come up with without doing extensive research. I'm not an expert on Pakistan, so maybe you should write something that is neutral. Here are some reerences:

DJ Clayworth 13:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Page move vandal

Block page move vandals indefinitely, not for 24 hours. CryptoDerk 20:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Will do. I just did whatever to get the block in place in the shortest possible time. DJ Clayworth 20:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Right, I figured that's what happened. The main issue is that if two blocks are set (1 indefinite, 1 for X hours), both will be removed when X hours have passed. So, if you do block someone for 24 hours come back later and make it indefinite. This has already been brought up with the dev team I think, and in the upcoming versions of Mediawiki it should be fixed. CryptoDerk 20:38, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Pointless Waste of Time

Hi Tony. I just wanted to make sure that when you unprotected this page you were aware that it has been the target of a sustained and organised campaign to modify it as much as possible? DJ Clayworth 13:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. What concerned me was that the article was deleted outside the VfD discussion that was continuing. If it was being vandalized the obvious solution was to protect and I don't understand why it was pre-emptively deleted like that. I think a rerun of the VfD would be best if people still think it needs to be deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Bereans

What to do? Bereans is an interesting topic whose development is being squashed by one user. The Alert doesn't seem to have worked. Do you think the discussion has satisfied the criteria - at least two people trying and failing to address the problem - to justify escalating the RFC process either as a content dispute or user conduct dispute? RayGirvan 10:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Message received. I think we're going to have to take the complaints procedure further. This is getting silly (well, it always was). Repeatedly introducing POV material and destroying constructive edits is definitely cause for a user complaint. I'll back you up in any such action. RayGirvan 13:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather not escalate it to that level yet. With a few people watching this article we should be able to keep it in a reasonable state. If things get worse we'll call in the 'official' help.

OK: I'm happy (that's not quite the word) to see how it plays out. I'm not going to argue the toss with Emico; as long as we work strictly according to the Wiki stance, it'll occupy the high ground should it come to later procedures.

Incidentally, I think the good news is that the Bereans article is already better than it was when I first saw it a week ago. I didn't know about the Barclay Bereans before this. DJ Clayworth 13:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello, David. I frequently contribute to the Iglesia ni Cristo, Felix Manalo and Erano Manalo articles and also feel that emico (now corrected!) disrupts the POV and edit processes towards his own opinion while frequently reverting articles multiple times in one day. I agree that we need to take action to stop him from placing his own POV on Wikipedia articles. --Onlytofind 05:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I noticed someone added a link for Emico's Request for Comment but hasn't added a page. I quickly created an incomplete page, and I hope you can fill in the rest before the sysops cancel it out. --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 22:18, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Last mile problem

Oops!

World War II picture

Hi! Just to let you know I've added my opinions to Talk:World War II regarding the picture in support of your argument. Mark 22:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Emico

I've given him a final chance before I take this to arbitration.--Onlytofind 03:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hellenic Genocide

I did discuss at the talk page right after I reinstated it. I don't see a reply from you there. --Delirium 17:48, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

My reply is there now. Let's go there. DJ Clayworth 17:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Responded; I'm not going to push the issue further, so feel free to re-delete. --Delirium 18:42, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

The "Bulldog" dyn ip-vandal

I noticed your ip-range block on 84.9.0.0/17 which of course helped for the 15 minutes it lasted.

When the vandal returned, I tried blocking the somewhat shorter range 84.9.64.0/19, and unless my calculating skills are worse than terrible, that should do in this case. I think... At least he didn't return for the period I blocked him. I believe the range he is vandalising from is 84.9.64.0 - 84.9.95.255, which my block should cover. I blocked him first for 20 minutes, using that range, and again for 30 minutes when he returned. I'm tempted to make it even longer if he returns again and I'm still around... Shanes 00:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye too. I miscounted the bits the first time. I also deliberately didn't say how long he was blocked for the first time on anywhere he might read it. DJ Clayworth 01:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, stupid me didn't think of that when I messaged you. I'll be more discreete in the future. Feel free to censor me ;-). Anyway, he seems to have gone to bed now. It's late here in Europe. Shanes 01:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Thank you DJ Clayworth for saying the right things to Mr.Peter Lee...
Maybe you can help me in this matter... I am working on an article about Genseiryu karate, but it takes time since there are two sides to that story. That is to say, there are two groups that have a story. We (our side) recognize that, but the other group doesn't. They only see their point of view. Now, this guy, Peter Lee, finds it necessary to delete ALL our text on the article that is about OUR side of the story. He then claims to have changed the work of a vandalist to make sure a moderator won't notice it. On his user page he also claims to be the "official contact person of GENSEIRYU in Europe", which is not true. (The most he can be, is a contact person for the karate style Butokukai)
I am working on a version that tells the neutral point of view of both sides. I will make two overlay pages on the article where each party can have a say. He can have his say on this after it's finished, but he won't stop deleting the text. Over and over again, he keeps going on. Other moderators have corrected it also a few times now, but he won't stop. He DOES know the rules of Wikipedia. He knows that if this continues, eventually the article will be totally deleted and blocked by some moderator that gets fed up with this, that is what he wants and that (unfortunately) is what happened to the Dutch article!!! He wants to see NO text, rather than anything about our side of the story.
Now, I have put a WIP sign on the article, but still he does not respect that and keeps deleting great parts of the article. How can he be stopped? Block???
I do understand that you can't really know who is telling the truth in this matter, but simply look at it the Wikipedia way: he is deleting large amount of texts that others put in. We don't do that! It's then easy to recognise the 'bad guys'... Please DON'T block the article, that means that they win! Thank you for your help! -- MarioR 01:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GENSEIRYU

Dear DJ Clayworth

I thank you for your comments, but I believe your comments are well off here. First of all let me clear something up. The texts about GENSEIRYU in the Dutch section were edited so many times, that the reader would not know his head from his toes. Also whenever something was written, just a few minutes later everything was changed. Then finally, the Wikipedia site stopped the article. I must say that this Wikipedia idea (free encyclopedia) is a clever and good idea. But when people continue to edit things they have no knowledge or, or even worse, keep posting things they definately know is untrue, I would actually call it vandalism in the "first degree". If I should be banned for even "just" 24 hours, when all I do is changing the text to hold only true and DOCUMENTED text, then I must say something is REALLY wrong with the Wikipedia site. If you annot see the this, I must honestly say, that you should stay out of it. Please be aware that English is my second language (not native), and no insult whatsoever was intended. The vandlism in indeed not on my side, actually you should read the true contents (researched contents), before accusing me of such. I hope that the Wikipedia site is not for untrue, undocumented texts with false and untrue propaganda. I hope the Wikipedia site is a serious site with the intend to supply correct information to the public. If not, then I must say that I am really wasting my time here. Please correct me if I am wrong, but correcting false propaganda has never been wrong in my book. I hope it is not so in your's. Thanks.

Hello again DJ Clayworth. Sorry to bother you with this again.

Yes, the Wikipedia on the Dutch side was changed over and over again, because the man writing you here (his name is Peter Lee, since he 'forgot' to sign) and his friends found it necessary to delete big parts of texts we had put in. We never deleted any of their text, unless it was an opinion or a definite untrue fact. The site was blocked eventually, but they actually cheered to this! They wanted the whole text to be removed all along! So through persisting vandalism you can actually get an article to be removed and blocked??? I hope that is not what Wikipedia really teaches their moderators...

In this situation, you can clearly see the vandalist: I am working on a NPOV article and put a W.I.P. sign on the article Genseiryu. Mr.Lee does not respect this and vandalises the text over and over again, in the hope to get the whole article deleted and blocked. This is no way of working. Please, do what you have to do and block this Mr. Peter Lee again, but for a much longer period than just 12 hours, so I can finally start working on the NPOV article. I am waisting my time with this guy... Thank you! --MarioR 22:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration has been started on Emico

I have proceeded to start arbitration against Emico- please add your comments.--Onlytofind 03:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Emico)

Opinion

Your opinions are earnestly sought on for deletion:Crowns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Crowns|Template). To put it simply, there were various lists on crowns and state symbols buried on files, hardly touched, and full of unwritten articles. I created a series of I'd say thirty articles on crowns, types of crowns, crown jewels etc, at considerable time and effort. I created a provisional template to link the articles together, which I planned, once I had all the information in place, to separate into a series of templates as there was too much information for one large one.

SimonP, who has been waging war on templates for ages (usually as a minority of one, through he usually forces his opinion on pages - such as his deletions of the Template:Commonwealth Realms from articles on Commonwealth Realms - by wearing people down on the issue) nominated the template for deletion. While some users have praised the template for creating a workable themed group with a visual unity via the template, a couple of people are determined to delete the template and use their beloved, hideously ugly, lists, the same lists that had proved to be a dead end for all these articles before.

The antics of SimonP makes me wonder why bother doing any serious work here, when all one get is attempts by a small number of people to replace professionally laid out information by visually unattractive, frequently complicated and because of the ease of edits, perrennially inaccurate long lists. I would very much like to hear your views on the matter on the TfD page linked above. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 21:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Salvation Edits

Sorry, I seem to have stepped on your edits. Please note the talk page with suggestions by Jim Ellis questioning my use of Restoration Movement and "need" vs. "condition". Please also note my response.

Pspadaro 21:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry. I didn't realise there was a difference. DJ Clayworth 21:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great work on the Jesus article with the notification tags. Huzzah on attempting to reach NPOV status >.>

I messed up a move with Ivić Pašalić

I was wondering if you could help me fix a move gone bad. I wanted to move Ivic Pasalic to Ivić Pašalić but the title of the article doesn't show with the proper name when I view the new article. I'm not too sure if I messed up the special characters or if my browser is having trouble displaying them. (Although the name displays fine here.) If you have a minute, could you take a look at it and fix any errors I have created. Thanks. --NormanEinstein 14:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm having the same trouble you are. I'm going to put out a called in Wikipedia:Village pump for someone who knows more about non-latin characters than me. DJ Clayworth 14:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep an eye on the issue there. --NormanEinstein 14:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I ended up putting it on Wikipedia:Help desk which I think might get a faster response. DJ Clayworth 15:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

reverts

You're also not meant to do more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. Please stop.

So anything you disagree with counts as vandalism?

No, removing large chunks of text like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_denial&diff=prev&oldid=15173649) counts as vandalism. DJ Clayworth 14:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That section was entirely POV. Imagine if there was a section in Creationism about why creationists are idiots (which they are, but still should be NPOV). Also, kindly stop using your sock puppets to get round the revert limit.

- - That quote above has described in one sentence why you should absolutely not be allowed to edit the Wikipedia, Emico.--Onlytofind 09:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not saying I disagree with the stuff I removed/changed, but i strongly believe in NPOV. So it's not "just because you don't believe some historical event", which is a loaded statement anyway, and my edit did not dispute that, it actually made it clear that the given cause of that event is not universally accepted to be what it was stated to be.

- - - If you do, then why did you make that POV statement above?--Onlytofind 09:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who you think is my sockpuppet, but I haven't edited as anyone but myself. If you think that large amounts of text need to be changed, then you shuld discuss it in the talk pages. DJ Clayworth 17:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should I start a RfC on gcessor?

I would like to know if you think his behavior on the Iglesia ni Cristo page has warranted the creation of one.--Onlytofind 09:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also believe that Mr. Cessor has taken one of your quotes completely out of context:Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo#A_good_statement_by_DJ_Clayworth

Mot having really been involved with gcessor, I don't feel I'm in a position to comment. I'll look thought. DJ Clayworth 13:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

poll

Poll There is a poll in the talk page of Macedonian Slavs article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#The_poll

Some people are lobbying for changing the article's name to Macedonian without any qualifier. As it seems, a number of these people come from the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav wikipedia project. It seemed only fair to attract the attention of people possibly from the other side of the story. I hope that this message is of interest to you, if not please accept my apologies.

talk:Christina Aguilera

Thanks for the heads up on the talk page revert. I think WP's servers are acting up again. --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)}

Yep, I saw some weird stuff in there. I think going back to the last known complete version was best. DJ Clayworth 22:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The bad thing is the IP who vandalized the page continues to revert to his edits of that talk page. I already put a WP:VIP on him, as well as warned him --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 22:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:DJ_Clayworth"