Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hinnibilis (talk | contribs) at 18:43, 29 June 2008 (statement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The empty talk page

Tuscan villas

Hi Hinnibilis, thanks for your message. The question you made me is much easier than you might think, infact translating the pages about tuscan villas from Italian to English will be as easy as to copy and paste! Yes, because we received an authorization from this website to copy the text (text only, no pictures) to wikipedia, and the site has a translation to english too!! The pages in Italian 80% comes from that website, so I think it could be a great starting point for en.wiki too! All you need to do is to use is OTRS authorization Ticket#: 2006072410011624

You can find coordinates and sometimes picture in the equivalent pages of italian wikipedia.

You can read a copy of the authorization here here. If you have further questions just let me know. --Sailko (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually don't make translations, but if you list me the sentences you did not understand maybe i can help --Sailko (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you can list me the terms hard to transalte, I will try to help :) --Sailko (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks for your comment; your help with that article and its many related pages is most welcome. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Brave man

I see that you are wading into the mire. Good luck, I wish I could say you will be in good company. As an aside, however, the tradition of chaste pederasty is an old one, and recognized as such. On a different note, I see you have a penchant for Tuscany. I too was drawn to it last winter, looking for pederastic artwork, to be sure. Do you think that is where the phrase "a city on a hill" was created? Cheers, the not so rebellious Haiduc (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, have you actually looked at the edits I have made? Hinnibilis (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Busy editor. You must be retired or independently wealthy. Good luck on editing the pederasty articles. Too bad you feel obligated to project the child sex chimera where it does not belong. And watch your step: pederasty and child sex are two very different things, and I do not think that you want to make the mistake of suggesting that homosexuality (which is where pederasty belongs) and child sex are one and the same. But I forget - you reject the validity of queer studies and think it needs to be relegated to future generations.

I do see that you have been busy deleting material at Pederasty wholesale, references and all. Please do as you see fit. When the dust settles I will look things over and restore any material that I can reference to published works. Some stuff may be lost and possibly should be lost - if mine, I started editing there a long time ago, before we started to pay close attention to references, and if written by others, who knows where it comes from. Anyway, I look forward to the process - remember, a forest fire is good for the forest. Haiduc (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks on FT2

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption.

Your attacks on FT2 somehow assuming his actions are caused by his support of pedophiles are completely over the line please somehow edit your entries or I would block you. FT2 does not deserve such assertions. Blocking socks used to circumvent blocks and bans are routine duty of administrators and checkusers. If you think somebody was incorrectly blocked on the first place then you should argue his or her unblocking. Sockpuppeting and uncivility would not only harm those goals Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Given you've decided to continue your off-wiki campaign against FT2 at WR and now brought it back on-wiki, I've blocked you indefinitely. The level of posting you've made about FT2 is shocking, it really is. Given that your original account was blocked indefinitely for exactly the same thing (and still remains blocked), you obviously haven't learnt your lesson. You were asked to step back and you didn't, so blocking is the only thing left to be done - users which harass other editors aren't welcome here. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement on my block

On 27 June I was asked by Thatcher to help deal with pro-paedo bias historical articles.

I read your post on WR. I have just dealt with a rampant sockpuppeteer User:Burrburr and friends, whose main activity is to remove such pro-pedo edits from dead historical figures. I suspect he was correct on substance but the abusive sockpuppetry (80+ accounts) was unacceptable. It would be a good thing for a knowledgeable, non-sockpuppet using editor to perform the same sort of review, as long as it is done civilly etc. The pro-pedos will find it much harder to revert someone of relatively higher status (most of Burrburr's accounts edited for only a day or two, so it was easy to label them as vandals or "single purpose accounts" and deprecate their edits). This is, of course, harder to do with an established named editor. Thatcher 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For example, it was being claimed with very little properly sourced evidence that Jules Verne was a paedophile. I did so with the help of an editor called Phdarts whose contributions I looked at and judged worthwhile. I made a considerble number of edits to the

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080629&limit=200&target=Hinnibilis

"rm politics reference - wrong chapter and is misquoted anyway" "rm absurdly general and unverifiable statement" "rm original research"

in which I was helped by PhD. There was no opposition at all from the pro-paedo editors.

Then I caught this edit to Haiduc's page

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Haiduc&diff=222250643&oldid=221444762

"Like you, I am much pressed for time, though I think that matters have gone beyond personal intervention - however well-authenticated - and now demand third-party intervention (as before). "

This 'third party intervention' was not long in coming. Phdart's account has been blocked for sockpuppeteering. He was, as I suspected, a reincarnation of the banned Headleydown, but I did not have a problem with that. He was editing under my supervision, and had made many strong contributions to the encyclopedia under other accounts. (FT2 has pointed to some abusive edits he has made, but haven't we all).

I complained bitterly on FT2's talk page and have also contributed to a thread on paedophilia subjects to the Misplaced Pages Review. I did not accuse FT2 of being pro-paedophile, I said that he was 'in effect' enabling the pro-paedophile lobby on Misplaced Pages. I do not see how editors with expert knowledge of this subject area can possibly continue to work under these conditions.