User talk:Od Mishehu/Archive1

IP Block

Psst, that block was made in 2005. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. Od Mishehu 10:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving messages for vandals

Thank you for reverting vandalism to the article November 25. Your help is greatly appreciated. I notice that after you reverted the vandalism, you didn't warn the user involved. Could I ask that in the future you consider warning users who vandalize article? Its easy to do and has two significant benefits. First it tells the vandal that we are keeping an eye on them - many users stop vandalizing as soon as they receive a warning. Second it lets other editors know about previous episodes of vandalism and makes it much easier to leave appropriate warnings and know when to impose blocks, if required.

Warning is really easy. Just leave a {{test}} tag on the user's talk page. In the first case of vandalism you leave a {{test1}}, the second time {{test2}} and so on up to {{test4}}. If the user already has a recent {{test4}} notice you can report them to the vandalism noticeboard. You can learn more about the warning system at the vandalism page. Good luck and thanks again for helping us remove vandalism from Wikipedia. Best, Gwernol 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that the anon user may not yet have seen that he had a messgae when he clicked on the Save page button for the second edit. I always give users such a chance before giving them a second warning. Od Mishehu 17:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, just wanted to make sure you knew about the warning messages. Best, Gwernol 17:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had looked at my contributions, you would have seen that I do give such warnings. Od Mishehu 17:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Od Mishehu: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! A very long-overdue welcome!NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 02:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Six Laws

Well hello!! Thank you for being bold, I'm afraid I'm going to have to remove that merge tag because Sheva Mitzvas came much later! I would of course love for you to contribute to it and expand the subject, there are only a handful of medrashim and gemoras talking about this. frummer 23:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Rather than removing the tag, how about discussing it, to see if the Wikipedian community agrees with you.
2. The Sheva Mitzvas are a slight extension of the six, the only addition being a result of the fact that people can now eat meat.

Od Mishehu 23:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, no eiver min hachai if there's no bosor. RE your point that 7MbN are an extension of the 6, it is true, but consider this - there where ten doiros when these 6 where in effect, when people couldn't eat meat, therefore I think it deserve its own article, especially since it was given to Adam by Hashem, where as the 7MbN in a separate instance where given to Noach by Hashem. Since the article is under construction and yet to cite the midrashic sources, I'm not sure if the merge tag should stay on. frummer 00:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shortepa

My dear Od Mishehu,everything you wrote about this article is a violation against the idea of Wikipedia.The article is absolutely normal for such kind of places-small districts with few villages in them.All the sources are riliable and public-maps and official census data.It is not categorised,because there is no suitable category for it (except Afghanistan stubs).So please leave the article as it is and if somebody ever wants to write more,let he does it.I strongly insist you to step back and remove all your templates,or I will contact Wikipedia for your patroling.Have a nice duty!Drjmarkov 22:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)drjmarkov[reply]

About the categorization, there are several geographic categories which such an article could be put into.

About the other claims, I'd like you to show me a few more similar articles.

Od Mishehu 05:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I even can show you other articles with less information in them,so if you are vigilant you would detect them by yourself,but you have not.I try to organise the mess with the Afghani districts and to help people,who occasionally come upon them,easy to locate them on the map,because of all the variety of names for them.You can be sure,that more information for some of the districts you cannot retrieve even if you go there.So leave this topic,if it is out of your interest.Maybe after many years there will appear more information for them and people to add it.I do not create articles ,which are not needed,I make the blank links not be thus.The links have been created before me.You have to be very eager in your patroling job to make fuss in the Christmass Eve for the districts in the Balkh province,Afghanistan.Use your energy for much more usefull aims.Merry Christmass and Happy New Year!Drjmarkov 06:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)drjmarkov[reply]

IP number

Okay, thanks for letting me know...I was just in the process of investigating. Bearcat 09:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24.3.28.181

Ok, sweet. Khoikhoi 09:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My block of User:Deathrocker

Thanks for letting me know. Mangojuice beat me to it, and I think his explanation was sufficient. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been keeping track of {{unblock}} requests. This user got my attention before Mangojuice got there, and I decided to make sure you know about this. I believe that any blocked user who places such a request deserves a responce (even if it's negative), and I do my best to ensure that they get it. Od Mishehu 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cetartiodactyla

Dear Od Mishehu, I find your global incorporation of this "taxon" a little bizarre! I read the relevant article, and the whole thing seems to be within the realms of "possibility only", and not even subscribed to by all leading evolutionists... A particular hobby-horse of yours, I wonder? Anyway, if you agree that the main article itself is substantively correct, then I suggest the introgression of this "superorder" into every conceivabale animal taxobox that "fits" is a little over the top. I suggest we leave the "accepted taxonomy" as is and leave the conjecture to higher-order taxonomic articles...what do you think? Thanks--GRM 21:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This taxon seems to be more agreed on now then Artiodactyla as far as the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life links show. I asked abot it both at Talk:Even-toed ungulate and at talk:Cetacea, and no one objected. Od Mishehu 21:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. Sorry that the articles you "sounded out" were not then on my watchlist. For the record, please put me down as a respondent "not convinced". That would give a score of 0–1 for–against :-) sorry ;-) --GRM 21:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier I added a comment on this same issue below. See User_talk:Eli_Falk#Why_add_superorder_Cetartiodactyla_to_all_taxoboxes_about_whales.21.3F for more... --Fedor 09:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Od Mishehu, Thanks for reverting some of the "Cetartiodactyla"s in taxoboxes; however, you have missed Antilopinae and maybe more... Thanks again!—GRM 20:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too. Sorry I have been coming on a bit too strongly. BTW I have now also downloaded the AWB software and see if I can contribute too... Fedor 08:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, any which I missed would probably be better to find by hand, anyway. Just look through the pages which link to Cetartiodactyla. Od Mishehu 09:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Od Mishehu, I wonder whether the inclusion of this taxon would be more approrpiate in the context of the Wikispecies project...?—GRM 16:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why add superorder Cetartiodactyla to all taxoboxes about whales!?

I can see that you have been massively adding superorder Cetartiodactyla to all taxoboxes in articles about whales. This is undesirable because of two reasons:

• It is preferred to only add main taxa to the taxoboxes and not intermediate ones like superorders, superfamilies, unless it clarifies the classification of the particular taxon described in the article. Otherwise it is unnecessary information that makes the taxobox less readable.
• Although the evidence for and acceptance of 'Cetartiodactyla' is growing, it is still controversial enough to leave it out of authoritative lists like taxoboxes for now.

I hope you agree with this point, and either turn back the changes yourself or allow me or others to do it... Kind regards, --Fedor 09:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: From Wikipedia:Taxobox usage#Classification:

Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, plus minor ranks  
that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or 
which are discussed in the article. Other minor ranks should be omitted.

--Fedor 09:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have rashly inserted this superorder in a massive amount of taxoboxes. As this clearly is deviating from common usage of taxoboxes, I would prefer that you revert these changes yourself. This is a lot of work and your responsibility, and as you are using some advanced wiki-editor yourself, it should be much easier for you to do than any of us. Fedor 07:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

Thanks. I have a friend who will hopefully do that in the next few days. —Dfass 07:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category tags

Thank you for the tip on removing tags. I did have the misunderstanding that stub tags were, in some cases, sufficient. --Ashley Rovira 13:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AAPLAC

I saw you endorsed my prod originally of this article (with {{prod2}}). Given your edit, I thought you'd like to know it's at AfD now, as the prod was removed.^[1] Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^[ T Â· C ] 12:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, added to catagory automobiles

0 to 60mph Speeddemonvegas 02:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests

Thanks, but I was aware of that. The thing is, the blocking admin is not permitted to deny a request for unblock, the idea being to allow the blocked editor to get a seconod opinion. We're only allowed to accept unblock requests, which I have no intention of doing because the account is clearly a sock puppet of a blocked editor. -- Vary | Talk 15:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but for an other admin to have the proper grounds for a reaction, a simple Sock of User:Piratesofsml, evading block isn't enough. If you give your evidence, then an other admin can decide based on it. Od Mishehu 18:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so I did, on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Piratesofsml (linked to from the template on the user's page) where such evidence belongs, or so I'm told. -- Vary | Talk 19:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion by region

I'd like the category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Abortion_by_region to be deleted per discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion#Hierarchy Can you delete it? Thanks.Ferrylodge 01:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been done according to G7 - author request. I'm not a admin, so I can't delete things. Od Mishehu 18:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article needing to be Wikified

I have created the Wikipedia article "Academy Hill School", a school where I serve as lead teacher. My intent is to have a group of students work on the article over the next few weeks, adding headings, details, sections, etc. I am hoping that it will not be deleted before my students can do this. How long will I have before it is deemed natable enough to continue to be included? Carolrosenthal 00:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Carolrosenthal[reply]

It looks safe for now. I wouldn't worry unless a deletion tag is put at the top. I don't think it can be speedied, and if it gets prodded you have time left to deal with it - wait till near the end of the 5 days before removing it to maximize your time.

By the way, about writing an article about a school where you teach, I'd recommend looking at WP:COI. Od Mishehu 10:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncat template aesthetics

There was a fairly clear consensus from discussion at CAT:NOCAT to add them at the bottom, and I don't see how it's feasible for a bot to make stylistic decisions about the best place to place it. Hopefully someone inconvenienced thereby will either fix the categorisation, or move the template by hand. If you feel the template is too large, you might want to bring that up on its talk page. Alai 03:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, sometimes i forget to do things :) Gaudio 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Academic organizations

Hi, I am a relatively new wikipedian and I wasn't aware that categories need to belong to categories. I have looked at the entry and will try to add to it as requested. I believe it is an important way to organize this information. Thank you for your vigilance. Canticle 22:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio stuff

Thanks for that. I knew it was blatant, so I did what I thought was best. You live, you learn. --DodgerOfZion 05:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your PROD of Abdul Rahman Husseini

It looks to me like your prod was for the vandalized version of the page - in which case the right solution is to revert the vandalism (as I did). If your prod was about the unvcandalized version of the page - I object; if you still want it deleted - feel free to use AfD. Od Mishehu 11:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Yes, I know how to deal with vandalism; I thought it was left over from a bodged page move (the sort of thing that would be sent to RfD, except that in this case it wasn't actually a redirect). Now I see this was not the case – Qxz 11:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Categories of Jewish Athletes

Hi. I believe this is related to an issue that has interested you in the past. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Category:Jewish_fencers some people are suggesting that Jewish athletes, beginning with Jewish Fencers, should be deleted. I do not think that is the correct approach, or consistent with wiki policy, and thought that others might want to weigh in on the discussion. --Epeefleche 13:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)--Epeefleche 13:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)--Epeefleche 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fox

No, a fox is definitely a mammal, even if it's undergoing oxydizing reaction :) The mammals cat is pretty large so I'm excluding humans and primates for now. >Radiant< 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah yeah I know. That list isn't particularly serious to begin with. I'm not at all sure if BrighterOrange is a color or a fruit (or, I suppose, the three the fruit grows on, or Orange County). If he objects he may move it. >Radiant< 15:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncategorised articles

excuse me, but i dont understand your comment on my userpage?

I was under the impression that 'stub' put it into the category of articles that were new and lacking, and thus needed inprovement?

if that was wrong then that was wrong, and i'd like to know so i dont do it again -- as far as 'not good enough' and 'i should put it in the correct category' is concerned tho, the whole point of a wiki is that one person doesn't have to do everything. as well as categorisation, it also needs, imo, an illustrative picture and more words. i couldn't be arsed to provide these, so i just started it off and left it for others to finish, bit by bit, wiki style. --Dak 23:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub articles, in order to be improved, should be classified with similar stubs - for example, an expert on Mammals can find stubs about mammals as a seperate place from stubs about bugs - a subject this user may know less about. In addition, Category:Stubs and {{stub}} don't make it easier for a user trying to find information on weapons - while placing a [[Category:Weapons]] on the page does. Od Mishehu 09:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{uncategorizedstub}}

I'm holding off tagging with this while the backlogs are so large; it seems overkill to have an article in both "queues", when there are so many waiting in both. If and when the backlog at CAT:NOCAT is cleared, or at least down to more reasonable proportions, I'll be happy to sweep through all the stubs with no permcats, and tag those. Alai 12:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

PLEASE RESPOND and revert your own mistakes

Well I can see that apparently you do read your talk page. I want to insist strongly that you yourself revert the superfluous and rash insertion of 'Cetartiodactyla' to all taxoboxes concerning cetaceans or artiodactyls. It would seem that you used some special software for this and the number of articles this has been done for now is so huge that it is much harder for us mere mortals to revert all the damage you have done than it would be for you. Please step up and clean up your own mess!! Fedor 13:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Uncategorization

Okay, thanks, I forgot to categorize as I usually don't start new pages (somebody always beats me to the punch). Yonatan (contribs/talk) 13:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Unblanking

If you'll notice, I unblanked it and then redirected it to the proper article. As the facilitator of the Burma WikiProject, I keep an eye on such things. Chris 07:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

My RfA

Hello Od Mishehu, I responded to your optional question at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/WilliamKF and wondered if you had had a chance to review it, and had any comments or further questions? Thanks. WilliamKF 21:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Re: To protect your page from vandalism

If you want to have your user page protected from vandalism, I think you should leave a request for semi-protection at WP:RFP. That way, the Wikipedia software will prevent anon users and new users from editing it, while allowing you to edit it. Od Mishehu 12:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion, but the vandalism really doesn't bother me enough to make additional work for the people over at WP:RFP. Reverting takes little effort, and the more time they spend on my user page, the less time they have to vandalize useful mainspace pages. --Onorem 12:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ranchi

I have actually created two new pages Schools_of_Ranchi and Colleges_of_Ranchi, and added the links on the page Ranchi, but I see that you have already reverted to my second last edit, should I revert it to my latest edit or remove the 2 articles?

Mayank Abhishek 11:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I see a large removal of text from Wikipedia with no edit summary, I always revert it. If you have a good reason for removal of text from a Wikipedia page, please use the summary to explain it. Od Mishehu 11:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I hope it is OK! Mayank Abhishek 12:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eksi Sozluk

I don't understand why Wikipedia feels justify not to carry the Eksi sozluk article. It is the most important open source community in the Turkish-speaking world, inspiring many spinoffs. It also has great political significance in the democratization of the country. The article shouldn't be deleted. However, POV paragraphs should be erased. Bestlyriccollection

Check the votes for deletion - at the original article's entry. I didn't decide to delete it - I just discovered that you reposted material which was deleted. If you want the page to be restored, try undeletion process. Od Mishehu 12:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Have fun at wikipedia! Maybe you can show me some of the stuff you know about Wikipedia sometime. When I have more time I'll talk to you some more. Bloddyfriday 15:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

My RfA

Hi Eli. Thank you for taking the time to visit my RfA. Rest assured that I have heard every comment loud and clear, and will strive to use the mop carefully and responsibly. Please don't hesitate to give me constructive criticism anytime. Xiner (talk, email) 00:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Eakins

Sorry I reverted you on this one, I meant to restore to an earlier version, not to imply you did something wrong, my apologies. - Myanw 14:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the disambig

Hi there, thanks for fixing the CFTR page and showing me the disambiguation template. I think that's the first disambig page I've ever made. I'll keep in mind what you said. Thanks again! --Kyoko 19:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Category:People_from_Assam

It was an intentional delete. I have moved the content to Category:People_from_Assam. It is not proper to identify people by their ethnic backgroud. Would you like to categorise famous personalities as White, Black, Hispanic, Asian etc? I would like to request you to delete that category again and place the items under Category:People_from_Assam. -Bikram98 07:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits

You mistakenly identified many of my legitimate edits to Minnesota House of Representatives as vandalism. I did accidentally remove some information, but as soon as I noticed the mistake, I quickly reverted. Sorry, I thought I was in my Sandbox window. I hope you don't mind if I remove your warning from my userpage. :: ZJH ^(T C E) 11:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The warning on your user page doesn't accuse you of anything except for not noticing or ignorance. The later warnings in the sequence do use the word vandalism, this one doesn't. Od Mishehu 11:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation?

As per the User Creation Log, you have created at least seven additional accounts (user:Asbrito, user:Doctunell, user:Dance4lifechick, and others). Please stop doing that, and explain yourself. DS 13:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had looked at the pages I edited around that time, you would see that I was helping other users at WP:ACC - people who want to sign up, but can't read the captcha needed to create it. There are probably more than 100 such users right now, that page is backlogged, and I've been helping there. If you think that this shouldn't be happenning, convince the community - not me. I'm only taking part in a process which the community seems to accept. None of thec 24 user names I've created since this process started are mine, and I'm not using any of them. Od Mishehu 08:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Good enough. I wasn't aware that that could be done by non-admins, though. DS 20:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a non-admin can't do is create an account name that's too similar to an existing one - users like me and Tra leave comments in such cases for admins to handle. In addition, a software modification request to allow admins to be able to create many accounts from a single IP address has been made, and possibly already implemented - I can only create 6 from a single IP address. Od Mishehu 07:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I was aware of ACC, but not that non-admins could participate. I'll admit that my immediate thought, upon seeing that you were creating multiple accounts, was to block you as an incipient sockmaster, but you were clearly a valid contributor. Thanks for helping out, and for being so reasonable about what could have been perceived me attacking you. DS 13:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ping belated answer. // FrankB 16:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Lousa

Stop reverting things you know nothing about. I don't like very much Wikipedia vigilantes, so keep out. Lousa is not the same thing as Lousã, is that clear? --Richard George 14:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the redirect Lousa->Lousã, Wikipedia has a policy of creating redirects to deal with non-English characters. In addition, it's not proper to blank a page just because you think it's wrong - either correct it (your disambig page is good enough), propose it for deletion according to WP:DEL, or leave it alone. Od Mishehu 05:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uniroyal

Uniroyal

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Uniroyal. It is considered vandalism. If you think an article should be deleted, please use deletion process, in stead of blanking the page. Od Mishehu 05:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Mishehu, you should clarify words describing my actions... I merely removed the REDIRECTION link to Uniroyal since the company you were pointing United States Rubber Company to has been extinct for 40 years. It was my intention to add a new entry for Uniroyal that listed current information as the posting for U.S. Rubber doesn't include current information of the last 30 years or so, such as the company's ownership by Michelin... But, hey, you may think that give or take 40 years is up-to-date. I just thought it was highly misleading information and deserved its own separate entry that would incorporate the history of US Rubber since its origins pertain to your REDIRECTION, but not its evolution since that time... I still believe it deserves it own entry... Regards, Steve Stevenmitchell 21:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

WP:ACC

Yes actually because I think normal editors are only allowed 6 account creation per day(24hours)..--Cometstyles 20:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]