User talk:Rakkar

Archives

Archive 1 2005-2008 Archive 2 2008

hey thx 4 sticking up 4 me, how you found out i don't know how but still thx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 06whitec (talk • contribs) 09:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rakkar. You have new messages at Backslash Forwardslash's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Rakkar

I note from your page that you are related to James Hope Moulton et al. I am James Hope's great granddaughter (Harold Keeling's Granddaughter), and I'm trying to put together my family tree. Are you an Eggleston? - I know that they are in Australia. Cheers Emma —Preceding unsigned comment added by CockneyR&W (talk • contribs) 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Jeff Mawkes, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Mawkes. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Nathan ^T 16:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello rakkar, thanks for inviting me to the drug policy group. I hope we can rid some articles (and those that read them) of prejudices and misconceptions. Hisredrighthand (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rakkar

Would you kindly desist from vandalizing the Harm Reduction page. You have removed 5 paragraphs, heavily cited and factual, from the text. You may disagree with the content of these paragraphs, which fundamentally reflects the views of the United Nations Office of Drug Control and UN International Narcotics Control Board, as again verified by the March 2009 deliberations on the International Drug Conventions in Vienna where Harm Reduction was not given status as part of drug control.

If you wish to continue to vandalize this page I will have no choice but to take the issue further.

Minphie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minphie (talk • contribs) 11:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Minphie, I hope you don't think I mindlessly vandalised your edits, check Talk:Harm_reduction for the reasons for my edits. We need to resolve the points raised there and come up with a version of the article we can both agree on. --rakkar (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference my discussion on Harm Reduction Talk ---minphie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minphie (talk • contribs) 11:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rakkar, you will need to read the Talk page for Harm Reduction before deleting text next time.

You have previously deleted text that had correct citations with correct interpretation, so it would be best that you better consider deletions before rushing to them. I have outlined some of this for you on the Talk page for Harm Reduction.

The practice of deleting text appears to be out of line with Wiki's cooperative ethos, where you have every right to question a lack of citation, or other problems, by alternate means than deleting.

I prefer not to be using vast amounts of time correcting your deletions which did not need correcting.

Minphie (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rakkar

I am giving my final warning re your continued vandalising of the harm reduction page, with your focus on changing the comments of any critic of harm reduction measures.

I emphasize that I have given two warnings before this and that you have continued to remove carefully cited, factual content which reflects one side of the harm reduction debate, and you consistently remove or change, without any VALID rationale, any text which does not reflect your point of view.

Let me elucidate. You have once again removed the section on criticism of harm reduction generally as it applies to illegal behaviours. It is clear that this is a balancing point of view which is important to the Wikipedia presentation. Importantly, it reflects the criticisms of the United Nations International Narcotics Control Board and the UN Office of Drug Control, so the two or three lines that I have put there reflect a majority point of view, in that the last United Nations review of the 100 year old drug conventions chose not to enshrine harm reduction into its chosen prongs of drug intervention.

You continued removal of cited and factual sections I have contributed, albeit under invalid rationales or clear lack of knowledge or inspection of my sources, to subsections of the Harm reduction page shows a clear and concerted pattern of attempt to rid the page of anything critical of harm reduction. Rationales such as reducing the size of an overlong article simply shows a bias in that you get rid of the criticisms and not of the inaccurate pro harm reduction statements that have already been contributed previously.

My next step will be to take this and the history of your vandalism to an Administrator, and I repeat this is a final warning.

Minphie (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rakkar

I am now taking action re your vandalism of the Harm Reduction page.

Your edit of paragraph 3 is a very good example of sanitizing vandalism, where the force of what is stated by the UN INCB and other organisations has been removed. Integral to the criticism is that the community condemns drug use but harm reduction gives the appearance of condoning precisely what the community doesn't want accepted or approved. To remove the latter part of the sentence is to remove something that the pro-harm reduction lobby doesn't like, and that is that sentence's stating of the fact that the community does not accept illicit drug use - crucial to an understanding of the issues between harm reduction advocates and those who oppose drug use.

Your removal of the injecting room information is designed to leave the reader in the dark. I have written clear and factual evidence on the failures of the injecting room approach, clearly describing the problems with well referenced citations. I understand you may not like the reality of what is typed onto the page, but Wikipedia readers have a right to the facts. Sanitizing is vandalism and I am now lodging a formal complaint with a vandalism Administrator. I had given you three warnings - more than enough. Minphie (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have advised Minphie that this is a content dispute, not vandalism, and that if you and s/he cannot reach a WP:Consensus by discussion on talk pages you should follow the process described at WP:Dispute resolution. JohnCD (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rakkar

I have done enough work on the SIS site for the time being and I believe that there is sufficient international information (there is not a great deal of good detail on European rooms) for you to remove your flag saying otherwise.

The information should no longer be disputed as far as bias is concerned in that all text is fully cited and accurate to the citations. I invite you to remove the other flag which states as much.

You of course can add as much as you want to the information above 'Opposition' which I AVE BEN WORKING ON. Minphie (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above sockpuppet investigation, I have blocked all three of your accounts. You may select one of them, and post an unblock request using {{unblock|reason}} on that account's talk page to have it unblocked. The other two accounts will remain blocked. Tim Song (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I created a new account ten years ago and retired this one, as I was in an edit war with someone who I didn't feel safe with. It wasn't very subtle, and I was reported for sockpuppeting. Could I get this account unblocked? For reference, my edit war was with someone who has since been banned and repeatedly denied to have the ban lifted - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Minphie#Sockpuppets

Accept reason:

Unblocked, as per the terms of the original block. T. Canens (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... could you disclose all the accounts you created? Especially any you didn't use. Daniel Case (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, I created a single account; Figs Might Ply. I was accused of having a third account; RichardBentley. I have no recollection of this account.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rakkar/Archive rakkar (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timotheus Canens: Since you yourself wrote "user is free to request one of the accounts to be unblocked" in the block log, do you agree on unblocking this account? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no memory of this place block. Unblocking is fine with me - actually, I'll just unblock myself. T. Canens (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Gore Hill cemetery Map.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --TheImaCow (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dennis Saleebey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Saleebey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Boleyn (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Democratic elements of Roman Republic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic elements of Roman Republic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 22:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]