User talk:Phral

Your Username[edit]

Your username "देसीफ्राल" is not made with letters in the Latin alphabet. WP:USERNAME says to create a username with letters from the Latin alphabet, so other editors can distinguish your username.----^DarkTea 06:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy, not a requirement. --देसीफ्राल 02:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your username appears to say "Desipheral".----^DarkTea 02:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind to create a redirect to your user and user talk page in the Latin alphabet? I'd also recommend that you include this Latinised name in your signature, as required by Wikipedia:Signatures#Non-Latin. Mel sa ran 12:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a requirement, according to the page you link. Hornplease 18:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It transcribes as Desiphral, which is my username. The user Hayden5650 happened to encounter with me through repeated vandalism and offending talk at Romani related articles, got banned and as I explained at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hayden5650, afterwards it seems that took my username written in Devnagari, then other derivatives of Phral (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hayden5650). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 22:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo at WP[edit]

Hi, and thanks for helping with the missing photo. Although I like the photo of the Austrian woman, it is of an unknown model while the rest of the people have verifiable heritage to a particular nationality or ethnic group. Minor nit. But above all thanks for the support. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 08:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Kevin, I haven't gotten too involved in the whole issue, just didn't want to see that empty spot! If there's a better photo you think is more suitable, by all means change it. --देसीफ्राल 08:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was looking for one, but couldn't find another greek woman and the Olympia D. photo was deleted. Talk to you soon. --Kevin Murray 08:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning[edit]

Please note that Wikipedia policy forbids doing reverts (for example, deletion) more than 3 times within 24 hours. If you violate this rule, your account will be blocked by an administrator. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White people[edit]

[1] You beat me to it! A perfect piece of OR. It is like he is incapable of using sources! I just love how he specified that Lebanon is in Asia. Anyway, let's keep that in mind for the inevitable RFC. The Behnam 04:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so basically the checkuser was saying, "It's so obvious that it is an abusive sockpuppet that there is no need to run a checkuser." That's something, though I'd prefer that they actually run the checkuser for evidence-related reasons. Somehow the way it is now doesn't make it clear that the sockpuppet belongs to Muntuwandi, specifically. Anyhow, we can still get Gongdong-whatever blocked, I think by simple request at ANI. I'll ask clarification from Deskana about it being Muntuwandi's sockpuppet. The Behnam 04:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake and Muntuwandi may be the same? That would be, well, very very clever abuse if that is the case. I've noticed that Ramdrake defends Muntuwandi too much, even at times when Muntuwandi's actions are indefensible, but aside from that they seem different to me. If some stronger or more specific evidence does surface, however, please leave me a note.

Anyway, I've asked Deskana for clarification about what sort of conclusions can be drawn from the CU case. It is at User talk:Deskana#Request, if you are interested in following. In the meantime, I suppose I'll leave a note at ANI asking for a block of Gongdong based upon Deskana's recommendation. The Behnam 04:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give you a heads up, the block for Gondwanaland has been requested at WP:ANI#Block request per CU recommendation. Cheers. The Behnam 04:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:Ramdrake is retired. It is a weird timing, given all the talk about similarities between Muntuwandi and him and Jeeny retiring...KarenAER 11:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC for Muntuwandi[edit]

I believe he comprimises the integrity of Wikipedia. Look at his history. If he is like he is in White people article in all other articles, that's really sad for Wikipedia. I believe we have more than enough material about him but I feel lazy about pulling all the evidence together and starting a RFC. Will you be willing to do that? Here is some headstart: [2] I'll ask the same to fourdee. Dbachmann already said, he would sign it but cant be bothered about starting one... KarenAER 11:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be my pleasure, I would have done it before now but I have been quite busy this week in the 'real' world. So I'll put something together this weekend, and hopefully wipe this little smudge from Wikipedia.

And yes, in response to your comment above, it is very peculiar timing, with various suspicions of sockpuppetry being raised. Hopefully now we will be able to concentrate on some real construction of the articles rather than just reverting and trying to remove the constant onslaught of bias, original research, and points of view these editors have been bringing to Wikipedia. --देसीफ्राल 11:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hows it going? KarenAER 15:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your civility[edit]

Your statement that User:Muntuwandi "needs an indefinite block" on this edit is against WP:CIVIL which says to not call for bans or blocks.----^DarkTea © 05:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I did not know that. Seems to be an odd policy, but a policy all the same. Thanks, --देसीफ्राल 05:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is nonsense. The call for a block may or may not have been justified, but calling for a block has nothing to do with incivility. Disruptive users are blocked, that's business as usual around here, nothing to do with WP:CIVIL. dab (𒁳) 11:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that dab, I thought it seemed to be a bit odd not being allowed to suggest an appropriate punishment, to help an admin gauge the situation --Phral 11:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your abusive use of warning templates reported at WP:ANI[edit]

Hello, just to let you know I opened an incident report about your abusive use of vandalism warning templates in what is clearly a content dispute.--Ramdrake 12:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reinserting pictures and information, after community consensus to remove them, is vandalism. Your actions are not disimilar to that of a troll. --Phral 13:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal Case[edit]

Hello, you have been listed as a potential participant in an informal mediation regarding a dispute over White people. The case page is listed at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-08-19_White_people. I am looking over the case, and am willing to offer my assistance in this. If you are willing to participate in the mediation and willing to accept my offer to mediate, please let me know. Thank you, Neranei (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler[edit]

Does that mean you would prefer Hitler over Bush! Seth71 15:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I said I know who I'd choose, you can infer what you like! --Phral 21:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing others of wrongful vandalism[edit]

Please don't accuse editors of vandalism unless you're absolutely sure they have committed it. In particular, avoid using the word in edit summaries (such as "reverting vandalism"), and be very careful about posting vandalism warning templates on user's talkpages. Review the vandalism policy thoroughly before you do that, and see especially the section "What vandalism is not". Note that content disputes are not vandalism, and that good-faith edits of any kind, even if you think them misguided, are not to be considered vandalism. Vandalism accusations without any basis in policy are bad for the climate on the wiki and make constructive discussion more difficult. See WP:VAND: "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." See also Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal".

- Jeeny ^Talk 02:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

suspected sock[edit]

I have opened a case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hayden5650 with regards to you. Muntuwandi 07:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Muntuwandi, you are too kind --Phral 07:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mulatto[edit]

Hi Phral. I've been looking into this word, and according to the OED it means "a person with one white and one black parent."[3] But apparently Carol Channing did not claim that her father had one Black and one White parent, she claimed that her father was part African American, so obviously one of her ancestors must have been a mulatto, but it wasn't her father. The OED makes no claim that this is a pejorative term so I think you are right on this point. All the best. Alun 05:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the linked article Mulatto does claim it is a pejorative term. And is used like Alun said, for those of 50/50. - Jeeny ^Talk 06:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seesms to be an edit war on this article, yesterday there were two vesions of the article, one claiming the term is pejorative in some parts of the world and one making no such claim. I'm not familiar with this term at all, so I can't claim to know if it considered pejorative or not. Possibly it is in some parts of the world, I just don't know. Cheers. Alun 08:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it used pejoratively, I've only ever heard it being used as a description of ones race. Never, in my life, have I heard someone say 'You goddamned mulatto!' or anything at all to that effect. --Phral 08:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Please stop reverting and accusing me of pushing a POV and that I'm adding shock value. What's so shocking about an outdated term? When that is exactly what the article is about. Not my POV, sheesh. Your's maybe? It is really disruptive when you do this. Please stop. This is the 21st century and this encyclopedia should reflect that. Just like I cannot rely on that old $500 (probably $2000 today) encyclopedia set my mother purchased in the 60s. Most of it is wrong, out of date! We need to keep up with ever changing information to keep it current. You have to learn to live in an ever evolving world. One where technology, medicine and science is constantly advancing and globalization and multiculturalism is growing. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 07:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Globalisation and Multiculturalism will be the downfall of mankind if allowed to occur. Negroid is not outdated, it was never part of common vernacular. It is a scientific, anthropological term. --Phral 07:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Please don't use misleading edit summaries while being the one absent from discussion. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate tag removal[edit]

Please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect. You must not remove the tag from your user page unless there is no evidence page against you, but there is, so it must stay. I'm going to restore it until this issue is worked out. Cheers, The Behnam 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muntuwandi[edit]

Muntuwandi is predictable. He's more amusing than anything, with his attempts at crudely aping the tactics he believes others are using. That bit where he thought the picture of negroes was "poking fun at blacks" is one of the funniest things I've read on wikipedia and it goes to show what he is thinking when he inserts the nonsense images. I think he'll be blocked again soon. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You've just been blocked for a period of 24h according to the incident reported at the ANI. Please stop following other users around and revert their sourced edits w/o using neither edit summaries nor talkpage. You were warned twice and that's enough. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how can you block Phral and not block Muntuwandi for his edit warring, nonsense images and POV-pushing. While he often appears to have citations, these involve far-fetched paraphrasings and synthesis to promote his POV. I don't think checking up on this behavior qualifies as stalking. I haven't looked at the specifics but it seems that Muntuwandi is problem user here and Phral was just trying to address this behavior.-- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 03:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you are talking about is content dispute. Note that admins has no authority to interfere w/ content dispute nor does the ArbCom. My block got nothing to do w/ that. If Mutwandi is the problem then file an RfC. The reasons i gave to Phral are crystal clear. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into Phral's editing closely (see the pending checkuser case), and even if we assume that he is not Hayden5650, Phral is still pretty much an SPA devoted to reverting Muntuwandi while using "negro" despite knowing that this is considered inappropriate. He claims that in his country it doesn't have any negative connotation as it does in the US, but by making this claim he reveals that he is well aware of the offensive nature of "negro," yet he continues to offend. Curiously, editing against Muntuwandi and using "negro" (with an irrelevant defense of this usage) are both characteristics of Hayden5650. In any case, FayssalF's block seems quite appropriate, and in fact an extension of its duration could easily be justified. The Behnam 04:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Negro is a perfectly reasonable term and is not considered a racial slur. It does seem that any term for negroes does become "insulting" somehow over time, sort of like how the pictures of regular looking negroes are meant to "poke fun at blacks" according to muntuwandi. This whining and correctness is way out of hand as it become impossible to even express oneself without hiding the meaning in newspeak. Sometimes a spade is a spade. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i am sure the block was mainly about wikistalking produced at Mother Theresa. Phral edited Mother Teresa for the first time in his life. Of course the problem is not editing but:

Mutwandi had just edited the same article before him an hour or two earlier;
Phral removes Time magazine source along w/ corresponding edits which Mutwandi had added earlier;
Phral didn't use the edit summary for such a controversial removal of sourced edits; (vandalism as per our standards)
Phal didn't bother himself to use the talk page; (he didn't care because it was clear all what he wanted is just revert Mutwandi in person.)
Phal comes arguing at the ANI; (in fact it wasn't arguing but disrupting and leaving inappropriate comments which amount to incivility such as No admin seems to have the balls to block a Black editor for racism.) A black and white editor????? Wake up please.

Content disputes got their own venues. Any more issue left? 24h is a very good bargain. We don't tolerate wikistalking which would eventually involve many other policy violations as shown above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hey, I'm not saying that it makes sense that "negro" is derogatory, only that it is. You live in the US, so you have no good excuse to use the offensive word. As for a spade being a spade, I wonder - is it really necessary to rely upon the checkuser? I mean, even if he found some way to make the IPs appear unrelated, it still looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, and so on... The Behnam 05:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Negro is a derogatory term. Otherwise the UNCF would change its name. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the duck test about Phral, as checkuser results have returned as "likely" - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hayden5650. The Behnam 05:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked per the above. --Haemo 05:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007[edit]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for being a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Haemo 05:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Phral (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not a sock, it wasn't confirmed. That's not the real reason for this block in any case, and I would like to be unblocked to enable me to file a request at WP:RfC to sort out the issues which have resulted in this block

Decline reason:

You quack like a duck, and you edit from the same area. I think this is conclusive.— gadfium 05:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.