User talk:Bdean1963

Welcome!

Hello, Bdean1963, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Rockero 19:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimoWreck (talk • contribs)

Urarina

Good start to Urarina - ~~I'll flesh out the rest of the footnote refs when I get a chance. (& when we're not tripping over each other LOL)~~ doneBridesmill 05:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC) - BTW, do you thinkl you might be able to get a picture or two copylefted to put w/ the article?Bridesmill 05:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 7 (Múltiples regímenes...) looks like Sp. version of same article as footnote 6 - should we cite just the english article?Bridesmill 16:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rijke piece (http://www.geocities.com/s_ritadecastilla/contaminame/rijke.html), appears to be an unpublisked manuscript, therefore by WP standards not certain if it fits WP:V or WP:OR. Agree that Els Rijke is a credible notable authority, but is there a better cite for this article than a geocities website?Bridesmill 17:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of WP:CAT to see how they work - seems you're having a frustrating time with them :-) Bridesmill 03:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polygyny

Have a look at that mess; interested in doing collaborative cleanup?Bridesmill 02:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loreto Province

Please see talk:Loreto Province. Thank you. --UlTiMuS - ( T | C ) 15:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korubu Indian

You have removed the picture of the Korubu Indian from the Indian page twice without explanation. Please provide the reasoning you have for removing it.--Dark Tichondrias 19:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Korubu image

Removal of picture of Korubu Indian (sic.) posted by Dark Tichondrias 19:02, 19, 2006 as it uses derogatory language (Indian) in the socio-cultural context of Peru. Moreover, the so called Korubu “Indians” have been reported by Amnesty International and in the popular press to reside in Brazil, not Peru (see for example http://www.pulseplanet.com/archive/May98/1612.html, http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0308/feature1/index.html?fs=www7.nationalgeographic.com.

The photo posted by Dark Tichondrias appears to be associated with the Travel Channel’s profoundly problematic “documentary” Into the Amazon: First Contact which exoticizes the Korubu peoples rather than provides an “objective” ethnographic account of the challenges facing indigenous peoples of Amazonia (see http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:a5SMG2aBxzcJ:travel.discovery.com/tvlistings/episode.jsp%3Fepisode%3D0%26cpi%3D22265%26gid%3D5262%26channel%3DTRV+Into+the+Amazon:+First+Contact&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1)--Bdean1963,19 July 2006

From my personal experience as a member in the American Indian Student Organization for one year, "Indian" was the prefered term used by all the members with indigenous descent. The president of this organization was very vocal on the use of "Native American" being derogatory.--Dark Tichondrias 06:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my personal experience as a member of MEChA for three years, indigena (indigenous) and indio (Indian) are also used, but the English translation of indigena to indigenous doesn't have the same connotations as in Latin America.--Dark Tichondrias 06:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the Korubu Indians reside in Brazil rather than Peru, this is a minor issue that does not call for the picture to be removed.

The exotic slant of the documentary has no bearing on whether or not the picture is illustrative of a Korubu Indian.--Dark Tichondrias 06:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For further discussion on the use of the word Indian vs Native American, see the Native American name controversy article.--Dark Tichondrias 06:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Man of my Argument

Your attempts to discredit my argument for keeping separate indigenous American articles by setting up a straw man and then proceeding to knock it down has been responded to on the Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas. You had characterized my position to necessitate races of "scientific validity" which could not be gathered from my statements. Then, you proceded to discredit my argument, arguing that scientifically valid races do not exist. To other users who did not check what I had originally said, it would appear that you won the argument when you really used a logical fallacy to seemingly win the argument. Note that even though you also agreed with me to oppose a combination of the articles, your attempt was to discredit my argument, so it is still a straw man.--Dark Tichondrias 08:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peru

Hello there. Your recent editions on Peru don't meet the criteria of what a NPOV article are supposed to have. The article in question is suppose to give a quick review of the history of the country, with facts and no speculations.

In Peru, there has never been such discussion or open approach to the "race" issue (ignoring, of course, the last Presidential Elections in which they were use only for political purposes). Thus, your comments (and the use of words) that involve "indigenism" are out of place.
The use of the words "Crisis of the Peruvian State" are your personal opinion. It is true that Peru has faced difficult times, but the state itself has not reach that category. Restrain yourself from using that term here in Wikipedia.
What you claimed to be NPOV is the work of an international organization that has its own agenda and is clearly biased against former President Fujimori. The issue is currently being investigated by Chilean Courts, and Wikipedia is not a political forum to expose your claims nor a place where a person can be declared "guilty" with no fair trail.

Please avoid reverting the article. It does not add anything important and only promotes hate and political bias. Thanks. Messhermit 21:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, you do not seem to even bother to answer my comment in your talk page. From now on, your editions on the Peru article will be reverted. Thank you. Messhermit 13:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here [1] Suit yourself to read some impartial and non-partisan news before posting something. And please, my Talk page is not for reading some blogg on the net. You are promoting a POV and that is not allowed in Wikipedia. Messhermit 15:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You ask for sources in the economic section of the article and do not bother to state yours for the ethnical composition of the country? Your edits are reverted until you provided accurate, non-partisan and neutral statistics. Thank you. Messhermit 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you "believe" must have sources, you question its neutrality or partiality. What you "do not believe" needs sources or supports your political POV, you don't question it or doubt of its neutrality. If you are smart, try to avoid that double standard and contradicting yourself.Messhermit 22:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember something: Wikipedia is NOT for commercial purposes. If you plan to sell your anti-Fujimori T-Shirts, do it in some other place. Messhermit 00:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bdean, remember that neutrality means not using loaded terms, just like "Dictators" or "Despots". If you believe that Fujimori was one of them, then that is your personal opinion and that is not neutral. Besides, if you believe that what he did, economically speaking was wrong, it is also your POV. Like it or not, his party gathered 15% of the popular vote in the last elections, and he still enjoys some sort of political support. What you are doing is unethical and unprofessional, especially from someone who states that has University education. Messhermit 15:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as a student and future Professor of History, let me remind you that if a professor has a political agenda or a political bias against some politician, it is not part of his job to promote political hate and bias to his students. What you are doing is, once again, unethical and unprofessional, and no Professor should do that. Messhermit 16:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I am not interested in your Anti-Fujimori bias, love or hate it, he was President and he left Peru with an Economy that it is working until our days. You did not live his presidency or the presidency of Alan García. I have that experience. Messhermit 16:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah!, and something else: The Fujicola does not exist, hence is not promoting any commercial use. Your T-shirts, on the other hand, does exist and only shows your lack of knowledge in the subject by comparing and advertising Milosevic and Fujimori. I wonder how neutral that is. Messhermit 16:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your e-mail, but I must remind you that, unlike you, I have personal knowledge of what happened during the Fujimori Presidency. Sure, you can go an sign as many petitions as you want, but if the Chilean Courts states that he is innocent, then you cannot do anything about it. Unlike you, I don't really on such POV sources like "HRW" or "Amnesty International" that have their own political agendas. You can write to my e-mail as much as you want, but restrain yourself from sending me spam. Messhermit 16:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the Fujimori case seems to address content issues primarily, is it ok with you to hold the mediation session on the talk page of the Fujimori article?--Amerique 07:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please restrain to write in my talk page in you don't have anything important to state. If you keep bullying me with that kind of attitude, I will have to initiate an RfA against your person. I urge you to avoid this, since in that case, my probation does not apply. Messhermit 14:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Messhermit Sorry for my delayed response. Given your ban from editing the Alberto Fujimori entry [2] perhaps we could continue our dialogue about the political history of Peru on the Peru talk page User:Bdean1963 30 October 2006

License tagging for Image:Urarina Woman Weaving.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Urarina Woman Weaving.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

MedCab case

Hi, in the context of Messhermit being banned from editing the Alberto Fujimori article, could you indicate whether you intend to continue your involvement in the mediation process. Thanks, Addhoc 19:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messhermit

You may want to check out Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Messhermit. I've updated it several times. I really, really hope that I'm not wrong about it. I'm pretty sure that I'm not. --Descendall 02:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. You might want to check out Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Messhermit_2. --Descendall 00:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And once more: it turns out that all of those IP addresses that were hectoring you were Messhermit in disguise. --Descendall 19:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--J intela 07:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I Hope my edits to List of dictators are exeptible I cited my Scources.

Alberto Fujimori

As I noted on the Alberto Fujimori talk page, I am confused by your statement, "We can also help Wikipedia by abiding by policy, and stressing these core policies on the talk page, can we not?" Any clarification would be much appreciated. Regards--User:Bdean1963 28 October 2006

The meaning of my comments are : To carry unsourced/unattributed accusations or controversial editorialising on a page about a political figure, particuarily a living one, is against policy. Such material should be removed immediately. Stressing this policy on the talk page is aimed to ensure that everyone is aware of this. I largely edit Cuban politics and history pages, and if such material were added or reinstated to any of those pages, it would be immediately removed by any number of editors for being a violation of WP:BLP or other policies. It seems that the Fujimori article has numerous unsourced accusations or dubious passages, this is not good enough and they should not be reinstated. Everyone should be clear on this. Thanks.--Zleitzen 23:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War

There wasn't a civil war. I'm from Peru and the only thing that happened was the suppression of two terrorists movements by the government which were devastating the country. The repressions could have beens strong, but battles against terrorists were necessary to disarm them and capture them. Maybe the title of the section should be "Terrorism and Fujimori". 201.240.239.229 02:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

201.240.239.229 thank you for your feedback. The fact that you “are from Peru” has absolutely no intellectual or epistemological bearing on the Alberto Fujimori entry. Similarly, I am a British Citizen as well as a Peruvian resident, but this has no bearing on your unsourced assertion “[t]here wasn't a civil war. I'm from Peru and the only thing that happened was the suppression of two terrorist’s movements by the government which were devastating the country.” I have had a long and on-going academic association with the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, and have conducted scholarly research on Peruvian political violence (including the 1990-2000 period). On the basis of my academic expertise, I can assure you that the civil unrest and culture of terror that plagued Peru during Alberto Fujimori’s authoritarian regime can not simply be equated with “battles” against “two terrorists movements by the government.” I concur with the findings of the Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission that Sendero Luminoso, MRTA (Movimiento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru), as well as official and paramilitary agents of the Fujimori controlled State were involved in gross human rights violations. While the Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission noted that the majority of the human rights violations and atrocities committed between the years 1980 and 1995 were primarily linked to Sendero Luminoso, the final report is quite clear in noting that members of the Peruvian armed forces were also guilty of destroying entire rural communities and extrajudicial assassination of suspected supporters of insurgent forces and bandits, particularly in provincial regions of the country, such as Ayacucho, the central “jungle” (selva central) and the Huallaga Valley in the provinces of San Martin and Loreto. The extent to which Peru’s complex and systematic violations of basic human rights was equivalent to terrorism, especially in light of the contentious nature of the highly charged term, is itself eminently debatable. Your suggestion that “[m]aybe the title of the section should be “Terrorism and Fujimori’” seems to elide the extent to which the Alberto Fujimori regime was also allegedly party to acts of state terrorism, as demonstrated by the imprisonment of officials of the government, such as Vladimiro Montesinos, and by the efforts of the Peruvian government to extradite Alberto Fujimori from Chile, where he is currently in exile, detained from leaving the country while the extradition case against him is resolved. Clearly the civil strife and political violence noted during the Fujimori regime (1990-2000) also involved the historically persistent problems associated with poverty, ignorance, and the profound social inequities of racism, themselves embedded in the pre-Columbian, Spanish colonial, and subsequent development of “Republican” or modern Peruvian social configurations. Fujimori’s neo-liberal approach to the Peruvian economy curried favor in Washington D.C., but this was contradicted by the unbridled growth in a voracious “shadow economy” predicated on the illicit trade in a wide array of items--including: coca, tropical hardwoods, gold, pelts, petroleum and armaments. No doubt the violence and terror observed during the Alberto Fujimori government was not a new aspect of Peru’s recent political history, as demonstrated by the duration of the war in Peru. As such, I feel it more appropriate to use the terms civil war when labeling this section of the Alberto Fujimori entry. I look forward to your thoughts. Saludos, User:Bdean1963 30 October 2006

I still disagree it should be labelled as a Civil War because unlike other civil wars, this one was different. It was a war against terrorism, and eventhough the Peruvian government under Fujimori may well have committed various crimes, does not make it a civil war. Fujimori was the president most related to terrorism in the history of the country and he fought it and was linked to it. I personally don't know people that could describe the period before Fujimori became president and the time in which he erradicated terrorism as a civil war. The title "Terrorism and Fujimori" is better suited because that section of the article explains besically how was Fujimori related to terrorism in Peru in the ways you cited such as human rights violations and the erradication of terrorism. -Thanks. 201.240.239.229 01:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messhermit

I diagree with User:Messhermit as well as with your assertion that I am "pushing a political agenda". Please note that User:Messhermit has been blocked from editing the Alberto Fujimori entry. I look forward to hearing from you. Regards--User:Bdean1963 28 0ctober 2006

It does seem to me that you re either pusshing a policital agenda, or at least your POINT OF VIEW in a strong way. You seem to have a picture of Fujimori as the "Devil" and of the terrorists Shining Path & MRTA as decent people. In my point of view, Fujimori actually FIXED the most important structural problems of that country, which were damaged to the core by Velazco and then by Alan Garcia. Shining Path and MRTA were a bunch of losers, gangsters, terrorist lunatics, that wanted power at all costs, even brutally killing many innocents. They terrorized ALL PERUVIANS for years. Luckily, Fujimori fixed that problem also. Before Fujimori, living in Peru was like living in a NIGHTMARE. Frequent blackouts, bombs almost every day exploding anywhere. Who can live like that? Right now, Peru is still a poor country but at least it is livable. You seem to be totally biased against Fujimori. My suggestion is to pick a few books that actually praise Fujimori, read them, and then make a balanced assessment of what he did for the country.--AAAAA 02:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AAAAA thank you for your commentary. While I defend your right to express your opinion, I respectfully disagree with you. In our collective endeavor to advance knowledge about the controversial, yet consequential historical figure of Alberto Fujimori, I trust you will provide sourced facts that will be able to substantiate your opinion. Regards, User:Bdean1963 30 October 2006

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Cbrown1023 23:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War of Pacific Editing Dispute with User:Messhermit

Thank you User:Cbrown1023 for your helpful intervention regarding the War of the Pacific editing dispute I have had with User:Messhermit. I look forward to resolving the content dispute. Regards, User:Bdean1963 28 January 2007

Edit Warring Ends

There have already been two pages that have had to be protected because of yourself and User:Messhermit. Those two talk pages also have extensive talk pages filled with personal attacks used by both sides in the dispute. If this edit warring continues in the Peru article or any other article both of you will be blocked. I hope both of you take this warning seriously because I will block both of you if it continues. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 00:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to create an RFC so that we can find some way to settle this dispute. In this RFC I ask that both of you refrain from using personal attacks against each other and do everything you can to maintain civility. It would be good to get views from others in the Wikipedia community regarding this matter. During the duration of this RFC I ask that both of you avoid each other on other articles. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 01:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by continuing to edit war after being given a warning on History of Peru. The duration of the block is 24 hours. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. --Jersey Devil 20:00, 4 February 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).

Bdean1963 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I writing to request that I am unblocked from editing for purported violation of Wikipedia policy imposed by User: Jersey Devil. I feel that this block is unjustified, as is reflected in the history of my editing conduct on Wikipedia. Contrary to User: Jersey Devil’s claim, I was not “given a warning on History of Peru”, but rather unfairly admonished for constructively contributing to the Peru entry, as my editing history indicates.

Decline reason:

Sorry, edit warring is a matter we take seriously around here. You are welcome to resume editing once the block expires, though please be sure you avoid edit wars in the future. -- Yamla 20:54, 4 February 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.

To administrator's viewing this unblock request, the user was warned to stop edit warring on the Peru article or any other related Peru-articles with User:Messhermit for these edits [3] [4] [5] after being warned by myself he proceed to add these exact edits to History of Peru, a subpage of the main Peru article. [6] The edit warring of both of these users has already caused the Tacna Region and War of the Pacific articles to be protected.--Jersey Devil 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/War of the Pacific.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Disputes in War of the Pacific and Tacna Region

If you are not going to discuss or talk regarding the articles of the War of the Pacific or the Tacna Region, I will have no other option that revert everything back to its original state. You have been encouraged more than once to cooperate and solve this issue in their respective talk pages, but if you are not willing to do so then it's not my problem then. Hopefully the fact that you were blocked for a day changed your way of dealing with articles here in Wikipedia. So I'll be waiting for your answer. Messhermit 20:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Messhermit

I provided User:Messhermit with a good faith effort at resolving an editorial dispute regarding the Alberto Fujimori entry. Unsuccessful mediation resulted in User:Messhermit’s temporary ban on editing the Alberto Fujimori entry, which as I have noted, has been disregarded by User:Messhermit. I welcome civil, non-threatening dialogue regarding the editorial/content dispute over the War of the Pacific and Tacna Region entries. I will let User:Messhermit’s recent contributions speak for themselves [7] , [8] [9], [10]. I stand by my assertion that the historical record of the War of the Pacific and the Tacna Region have shaped the recent maritime dispute between Chile and Peru. User:Bdean1963 8 February, 2007

Thanks for your punctual response. Please avoid advertising yourself and/or your opinions. Stick to the topic and please state with accurate sources why is that the recent maritime dispute belongs here. In fact, I'm glad that you are monitoring every single movement that I do here in Wikipedia, it only shows that while you are busy chasing me here, you are not willing to explain your editions of both Talk Pages. Thanks. Messhermit 21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that two things are related doesn't mean that they are best treated as a single subject. The recent dispute really belong in a separate (or different) article, rather than being treated as an afterthought in an article on the War of the Pacific. Hope this makes sense, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not prejudging the issue, but I've created a copy of the disputed section, with some extra news reports I could find, at User:Bdean1963/War of the Pacific recent events. I think it demonstrates that there is sufficient material for an article on recent relations between Chile and Peru, given that the material there lacks any context. Hope this is helpful, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I don't think there was anything you wrote that I would disagree with. I'll certainly be commenting further. As regards the naming of the spun off article, I'll do some gnomic fiddling around. Chilean-Peruvian Maritime Dispute of 2006-2007 seems sensible to me, which means that at least two people like it. Very best wishes, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive behavior now. There is an ongoing discussion in a Talk Page of the article and your editions do not contribute at all. You know that what you are doing is nothing more than a "Red Herring" fallacy and that is not encyclopedic. Messhermit 17:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by continued edit warring in the List of Peruvian Presidents article. The duration of the block is 48 hours. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. --Jersey Devil 20:19, 17 February 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).

Bdean1963 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am writing to request that I be unblocked from editing Wikipedia, a block which I feel has been unfairly administered by User Jersey Devil who has posted his rationale for his unilateral actions on User: Descendall's talk page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Descendall, which I feel raise the issue of Jersey Devil's neutrality is administering his editorial responsibilities. Contrary to fallacious claims posted by Jersey Devil at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, I was given no warning today, nor did I violate Wikipedia editing policy on the List of Peruvian Presidents

Decline reason:

Both you and your edit war opponent were correctly blocked for edit warring. Attacking the blocking admin will not help you. Try to discuss changes on the talk page beforehand next time. -- Sandstein 09:17, 18 February 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.

This is in reply to your e-mail:

Thanks for reviewing my request for being unblocked from editing which I feel was unfairly administered by User Jersey Devil for alleged edit warring. Review of my editing yesterday does not support your assertion that I engaged in edit warring with User: Messhermit, and a review of the talk page associated with the entry in question does like wise. A summary of Jersey Devil's commentary rearding Wiki presence, raises questions about his "good faith." Finally, how do I request that User: Messhermit's recent ban be listed on the blocked user list. Again, thanks.

Your unblock request has already been declined. Like you, User:Messhermit is not banned, but blocked. There is no editable blocked user list, but there is an automatically generated one. Just wait for the block to expire, do not send any more e-mails, and do not edit war again. Sandstein 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about your image

Hello Bdean1963,

I have a question about your recent upload, File:Shimbillo-mummy.jpg. The image was added on Mummy#Deliberate mummification in other cultures although I am uncertain if the mummy was deliberately mummified instead of being naturally mummified. If the mummy was not deliberately mummified, the image is unfortunately unsuited for that section of the article. Although, if the mummy was deliberately mummified; please disregard this message. Cheers, --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 22:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly was this image added to Tarapoto#Education? Also, two IPs have been inserting it into completely random articles, like Thanatosensitivity, what's up with that? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further vandalism like this may result in you being permanently banned from Wikipedia. Please stop before this gets out of hand. --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 16:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; if you continue to violate instructions regarding an image to Wikipedia again (whether it is on your multiple IP adresses or your account) , you will most likely be blocked from editing without further notice. --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 23:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can accuse him of an IPs edits without consulting a checkuser. It may seem obvious but blocking someone is a serious move and shouldn't be based on guesses. In any case, if this account was blocked and it is indeed him, then it won't actually matter that this account is blocked since he'd still be using IPs.

If he or the IPs refuse to communicate and continue to add the image to unrelated articles, we may have to request page protection(s). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 23:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that your reason is likely to be more appropriate than my original idea. Regards, --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 19:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chayahuita hands.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chayahuita hands.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 05:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foreign Military Studies Office has been nominated for merging

Category:Foreign Military Studies Office has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]