The 50 DYK Medal | ||
Thank you for your excellent work and tireless devotion to DYK. Keep up the fine work and may the next 50 be as fine. Congratulations on fifty plus DYKs. Caspian blue 17:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC) |
I've been quite distracted and things I was planning to do were piling up the whole time. Sorry for not having responded for a few weeks. It looks like your article on Fritz Neumayer has made good progress meanwhile. Sciurinæ ( talk) 14:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, AdjustShift. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn ( talk) 17:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Adjustshift I hope this is formally right, I do it for the first time.
On 24 June you reverted a rather well founded and more up to date agriculture, lifestock and forestry back to your own much less up to date (basically copy&paste from Paraguay country profile. Library of Congress Federal Research Division (October 2005)) version. Absolutely uncomprehensable for me. Images you deleted, too. I re-reverted today. I also deleted your your phrase corruption keeps investors away or so. To judge by comments I see here you contribute a lot to wikipedia. Please be extra responsable when dealing with country pages, more so when it is a poor country doing its utmost to attract foreign investment. Greetings from Paraguay-- Paisano flaco ( talk) 20:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I have accidently created a redirect Battle of of Lutter am Barenberge, whereas it should be Battle of Lutter am Barenberge. Can you please speedily delete the incorrect one per db-redirtypo, thank you. I promise to be more careful in the future. Skäpperöd ( talk) 16:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Kresock, I'm missing you. Where are you these days? If you are still around, give me a ping on my talk page.
Have a nice day! AdjustShift ( talk) 06:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Giants27 ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
| |||
Don't forget that the next Military history coordinator elections take place in September. You might like to start thinking about whether you are interested in standing. More information to follow in the next edition of The Bugle. In the meantime, enjoy the remainder of the holiday season and come back refreshed and raring to go! Roger Davies talk 02:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC) |
New featured articles:
New featured lists:
New featured pictures:
New A-Class articles: | ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 18:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about the closure of [1] as no consensus (i.e. keep). There was another article where many similar arguments were presented in the AfD discussion: [2]. In that discussion, delete - keep = 4, while in the communist genocide discussion delete - keep = 6 (if I counted correctly.) Still, the former was closed as merge (i.e. delete), while the latter was closed as no consensus. I'm also curious about how you assessed the weights of the arguments at [3], since it seemed to me that many who voted "keep" presented little argumentation at all (giving only one-line "votes"), while most who voted "delete" presented lengthy argumentation. Offliner ( talk) 16:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, AdjustShift. I think you the way you closed the AfD given the arguments was correct. However here is why I believe the article is wrongfully kept: The article appeared to me as a blatant POV attack when I first noticed it at Newpages and many of the people wanting to keep the page have a history of having a certain bias/voting predictably in AfDs related to the subject, whereas most users wanting deletion were regular AfD participants who could be expected to be neutral. I'm not saying the bias was not present in both sides but it the POV attack appeared very blatant the way I saw it. If you look at the talk page of the article, this nastiness is present at once. Anyways I have tried to work with this article however I am scared off by this nastiness. I believe this incident has taught me what I should stay out of. Thanks for your time, Triplestop x3 03:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi AdjustShift,
Good day to you! I have not edited any material on WP for some time. User: Ravichandar84 is unnecessarily typing my name in edit summaries of the article Iyengar. You can see his edits here. He is the only one who is editing the article currently but he is again accusing me of having a ip sock. I am not a sock and I never used any ip sock all through my edits on WP. I do not want to disclose my gender or ethnicity here in the U.S. I request you to protect my account and please advise Ravichandar84 not to accuse me of anything. I have no grudge against anybody, but Ravichandar (a man from India) is relentlessly, unethically, unprofessionally, and belligerantly accusing me. You are also an American, you (I guess) follow principles and ethics while interacting with all people on WP and some other media. Please protect my account and please prevent any admin, or somebody from taking any negative action against my account. This is just to keep you posted of the recent happenings. I will call it a day now! Awaiting your help and professional assistance. Svr014 ( talk) 19:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear AdjustShift, I want Ravichandar84 to stop accusing me. I am an American and I am following rules on WP. There is no need to do CU on my account. I also do not want Ravichandar to dictate terms here on WP as all editors must be given equal opportunity. I have clearly elucidated to you about ethics you may be following here in the U.S. You can very well see how badly Ravichandar is arguing the toss with me. He is also using offensive words like "unethical cheats, liars and scoundrels" in his posts. Ravi sits on computer for hours together to mainly accuse me for nothing I did. I respect all wikipedians regardless of nationality. Ravi is obsessed with articles on caste (which are as sensitive as articles on race, gender, etc). I am consistent with my opinions and unlike Ravichandar I don't enforce my opinions on people. AdjustShift, please protect my account. Please advice users like Ravichandar84 NOT to accuse me. I advice Ravi to keep a low profile and try to be a good citizen of the world. Hope this fills the bill. Also, please do not ask YellowMonkey to do any harm to my account as he tends to look down on some wikipedians who are not situated in British Commonwealth Countries. This is just my opinion. Still, I respect YellowMonkey. I will call it a day now. Thanks for your time. Svr014 ( talk) 19:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, are you going to make an effort to explain your edits? Noloop ( talk) 16:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Abce2| Aww nuts! Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi AdjustShift
I don't think you comments at ANI concerning the conflict between Blofeld and Huldra were particularly helpful. It might have been the wrong venue or not, and of course nobody would get blocked over it, but calling the complaint of the one party absurd three times in a row, the actions of the other party praiseworthy, and marking the complaint as "resolved" at the same time, didn't defuse the situation, it escalated it. I saw two good-faithed and hardworking editors in a heated content dispute there. If they lock horns, we should try to calm the situation, not belittle one side.
Cheers,
Amalthea 22:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, AdjustShift. I have answered all here: User talk:Huldra#The blue soup, Huldra ( talk) 22:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the t-shirt, and for your participation in my RfA. I hope we'll get to colaborate in the future. best wishes! ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist ( talk) 10:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Do you think you could give me the authorization to upload pictures. Thank you! Ashfromthepast ( talk) 20:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for alerting me to the appearance of this article on the front page. I am greatly obliged. Tim riley ( talk) 11:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello I'm very new to wikipedia, perhaps you could show me the ropes? Himalayan 14:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that there is a odd dispute at Talk:List of Ultima characters, with some users claiming that there was a consensus at Talk:List_of_Ultima_characters#Merge_discussion although this seems dubious. There is also an RFC where the discussion seems to be getting heated: Talk:List_of_Ultima_characters#Merge_discussion. I think an experienced user or admin should try to defuse the situation before it gets worse, but I don't know where to ask for such intervention. Can you help? Offliner ( talk) 18:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I know :( It was too much for me to handle :P Aaroncrick ( talk) 21:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I see you emailed her, can you send me her email? She asked me to shoot her one but I've no idea what her address is. Staxringold talk contribs 20:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Why are you reversing my edits? I'm trying to repair some of the damage done by Bioextra. 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 14:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear AdjustShift, I sincerely request you to support me wholeheartedly in this issue. You now understand that User: Ravichandar84 is siccing me mainly because of deep-rooted hatred in his mind against me which may be based on my nationality (which is American) or based on some other unprofessional and unethical reason known only to him. He blindly accused me of having a sock way back in July 2009 (I guess on 07/06/09) WITHOUT any evidence. He also used some unprintable words like scoundrels, cheats, liars in his post mentioned above. I am really concerned that he may do some harm to me in the long run here on WP. Please respond to my requests and please protect my interests and account here on WP. Please do not discriminate against me for no reason. I am also cognizant of the fact that some Asian Indians are good people. They follow principles and ethics the way some Japanese, Americans, and others do. But I am really worried because of this man- Ravichandar. He is not willing to mend his ways here on WP but is constantly abusing and harassing other editors. Hence, please respond to my requests and please protect my account and my interests here on WP. Thanks for your time and have a nice day! Svr014 ( talk) 13:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
That's all for now. Need to get down to brass tacks with my boss. Have a nice day! Svr014 ( talk) 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
... this reason was sufficient enough to suspect User:Svr014 to be a sockpuppet of some politically minded miscreant who had vandalized Wikipedia earlier
Really? See the second section of Season. If you think vagina repeated 300 times is less vandalism than the two words in the intro, fine. You didn't give me enough time to fix all of it. Andyo2000 ( talk) 13:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I happened to run across this (which I followed to this) a little while ago. Take a very careful look at what you restored here, in particular the sources cited. --Dynaflow babble 04:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem [10]. radek ( talk) 20:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, -- A Nobody My talk 05:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Such a pleasant suprise. Thank you, sir. :-) Sciurinæ ( talk) 19:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,
Roger Davies
talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Wittgenstein is Jewish, not only insofar as he was ethnically 3/4 jewish, but also in his constant references to himself as jewish. Read Culture and Value - he always regarded himself as Jewish. He actually discusses himself as a specifically "Jewish philosopher" many times. 86.26.0.25 ( talk) 16:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Per http://www.iep.utm.edu/wittgens/#H1, he was neither halachically a Jew nor born into a Jewish family; however, he had Jewish ancestors. Halachically, Wittgenstein's mother would have to be Jewish, and she was not, as only her father was Jewish, not her (Wittgenstein's mother's) mother. Wittgenstein's father was Jewish, halachically, as conversion from Judaism is not recognized by Halacha as removing one from the faith, but as Jewishness is decided based on matrilineal descent, his father does not have any bearing. As for a non-halachic perspective, as both of his parents were practicing Christians at the time, I fail to see how he could be considered Jewish under that view as well. -- Avi ( talk) 16:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
--- The Halachical definition is irrelevant here, as he always considered himself to be categorically Jewish. [But his family was also considered Jewish by the wider society (to the extent that they only just survived the holocaust after years of legal battles, paying the Nazis off with their fortune).] On the other hand, he never considered himself to be Christian at all - although he was obsessed with the New Testament. (And yet he is listed as a Christian philosopher, despite the lack of references for this)
Also his family were not "practising Christians". It a different thing to nominally convert to christianity in order to avoid persecution, than to practice a religion.
Now as for reliable sources, I don't know where to post these on the article (how can you source categories?), but look at, for example,
Wittgenstein, Culture and Value (Oxford 1998), page 16: "The saint is the Jewish genius. Even the greatest Jewish thinker is no more than talented (myself for instance)."
Or Wittgenstein, Culture and Value (Oxford 1998), page 18:
“ | "If Jews are said not to have any sense for possession that is presumably compatible with their liking to be rich; since money is a sort of power not possession. (I should not for instant like my people to be poor, since I wish them to have a certain power. Of course, I wish them to use this power properly too.) | ” |
These are two examples, but there are hundreds of extant samples in his notes and letters where he refers to himself as Jewish. His Jewish identity was actually an obsession.
86.26.0.25 (
talk) 21:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
There are different issues here: (i)whether he thought of himself as jewish? The answer is yes. (ii)whether he was actually jewish? The answer seems subjective. (iii)whether he was a "jewish philosopher"? Who knows? Avaya1 ( talk) 16:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I just removed five more categories from the Wittgenstein article. If adding a subject to a category is not uncontrovertibly accurate then it should not be done. As far as the quotes given by Avaya1 are concerned and providing they are as he says, then I would support inclusion as I find the information noteworthy enough. Goodmorningworld ( talk) 18:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Regards -- 89.32.121.102 ( talk) 18:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I noticed you recently blocked 91.104.74.124 for 55 hours for vandalism. This user had only received a level 1 warning, and as far as I'm aware, was not reported on AIV. I'm curious as to your reasoning for this block after just one warning. Cheers! Ale_Jrb talk 15:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for the revert I was using Lupin's and it looked like you were the one vandalizing...Glad I didn't leave a warning though, Happy editing.-- SKATER Speak. 20:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You changed Kim's nationality to Canadian without any source. I have changed it back to English and provided a reference to support this. Spudbynight ( talk) 11:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
All I am doing is removing the blocked users pov edits which got him blocked in the first place hes created many accounts and im trying my best to revert his edits on the Mughal empire page 86.158.232.138 ( talk) 16:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind taking look at this user?
Dilawere123 reinstated the same exact edits as Mupper. Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 18:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey! This guy is a sock for sure of Mupper3445 Aamirshkh ( talk) 18:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You have been supporting the banned user Aamirshkh on the Mughal empire page I simply removed his POV edits hes not even allowed to edit yet you continued to support him by protecting the article and re adding his edits I will make sure Pakistani users are aware of your favouritism on the Mughal empire page and make sure his trash is removed whether you like it or not 86.156.211.56 ( talk) 09:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
| |||
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists:
New featured pictures: New A-Class articles: | ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
Looking behind the figures, some other interesting facts emerge. First, 84% of our promoted articles had successfully passed a Milhist A-Class Review before going on to FAC. Second, of the 29 Milhist articles that failed, less than half (41%) had had an A-Class Review. Third, the 97 Milhist articles accounted for 16% of all FACs submitted between January and July of this year. The clear lesson is that if you want a string of featured articles to your credit, you may find Milhist's A-class Review process to be of benefit to you! Roger Davies talk
| |||
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 18:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I reported on you on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page. Loosmark ( talk) 02:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi AdjustShift: Loosmark contacted me requesting advice on how to take his/her complaint against you further and I was duty-bound to reply. For your reference my response to Loosmark is here: User_talk:Loosmark#To_complain_about_the_conduct_of_an_admin. Regards Manning ( talk) 23:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
A.Shift, you accused me of making a false statement here [20] I wrote: I remember AdjustShift being very involved and even defending German editor from being blocked while in dispute with Polish editors. You wrote: This statement is 100% false. Here is the link to the page were you defended a German editor from being sanctioned [ [21]] I expect a clear and full clarification that I was not lying on the talk page you have made your accusations at, as well as maybe an apology. I believe that you did not remember that you did defend that editor, but yes you did, and you were involved in Polish-German disputes. At the same time perhaps you could examine your edit history and again think about it if your decision was really neutral and not dictated by luck of sympathy to the Polish editors. Thank you.-- Jacurek ( talk) 04:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
IP mentioning your warnings here. 7 04:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Voting in the
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,
Roger Davies
talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, – Juliancolton | Talk 14:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Nangparbat has sent me another message wishing to discuss current problems with me with this IP 86.153.131.65 ( talk · contribs). I don't know if it might help and I know he's breaking policy by block evading but he seems to be willing to talk and discuss the root of the problem and put aside his past actions. Would it be right to discuss the matter with him so long as he remains civil and does not start editing articles, etc. or just enforce policy? Could you advise what to do? Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 16:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for acting on my edit war report. -- Eaglestorm ( talk) 04:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
What tools do you use to apply Anon bans? Just curious and all, you picked up this one I was having issues with pretty quickly: [22] Thanks -- smadge1 ( talk) 17:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
First off, would you please stop beating me to reverting! :P
And the second thing, do you have a bot that archives your page or do you do it whenever you feel like it? --
Scythre
Talk
Contribs 16:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
I removed the block against 143.231.249.141 ( talk · contribs · logs · block log), for several reasons:
A) This IP is shared, as mentioned on the talk page, and 72 hours is too long of a block for a routine block of any shared IP. Long blocks against shared IPs need to be made cautiously and with a great deal of community and technical support, because of the fallout that can result.
B) This IP is in a sensitive ownership group, in that it is owned by a governmental agency. This is a fairly minor point, and being governmental certainly doesn't excuse any vandalism or leave the IP immune to blocking, it simply means that blocks against it should be placed with the knowledge that they may be subject to extra scrutiny and should be placed with good cause.
C) The edits leading to this block did not seem to rise to the level of vandalism. They had only made three edits today. I assume the block was placed because of the removal of a paragraph from Flags of the Confederate States of America , but that is not automatically vandalism. Yes, they should have explained their edit, and perhaps it was without merit. One could point out that section was unsourced, and partially original research. This edit should have been reverted at most, though I'm not even sure that it warranted a revert.
Please consider these things as you block IPs in the future. I see that you do a lot of vandalism patrol, and that work is certainly important to the project and I appreciate it. It's easy when in the heat of trying to keep up with the recent changes to quickly block and forget users, but we must be sure that our blocks are placed with good cause and with an understanding of how blocks can appear to users, especially the casual users who might just be starting to edit Wikipedia after seeing an error. They're in the process of converting from reader to editor, and we want to encourage that to happen in a positive way.
Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
| |||
Greetings to all members of the Military history WikiProject, and to those outside the project who receive this news letter as well! My name is TomStar81, and it with a great sense of pride that I assume the position of lead coordinator for the project. On behalf of all the coordinators, both new and returning, we wish to thank those of you who participated in the September elections, and we look forward to working to advance the goals of the project for the next six months. With the elections concluded, there are two changes. First, Roger Davies has been appointed a coordinator emeritus, joining our first coordinator emeritus Kirill Lokshin. Secondly, for the first time ever, the lead coordinator for the Military history WikiProject will be taking a lengthy wikibreak. For those who were unaware of this, I am an undergraduate student, and will be taking a leave of absence, effective end September, to focus on graduating in December. However, with fourteen coordinators, and two coordinators emeritus, I am confident the needs of the project will be well taken care of. For the VIII coordinator tranche, TomStar81 ( Talk) |
New featured articles:
New featured lists: New featured topics: New featured pictures: New A-Class articles: | ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 23:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi again. It seems Nangparbat created another sock and is warring over a couple articles with several users (they also seem to know that it's Nangparbat):
Nishkid blocked SupraTomas23 as a sock of Nangparbat yesterday. Tazer43 keeps removing the sockpuppet tags for SupraTomas23. It would seem that Tazer43 is also SupraTomas23. Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 14:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Here he comes again, 86.162.69.197 ( talk). Qazmlp1029 ( talk) 15:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank You very much. Qazmlp1029 ( talk) 15:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
ping Skäpperöd ( talk) 16:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
.. but why this [25] relatively short recent block, given the previous block history? Philip Trueman ( talk) 17:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
An IP you just blocked has switched IPs, to 82.29.1.10 ( talk · contribs). I've tacked this onto the report. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Did you know 07:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you you protect my page[ [27]] please, it is being vandalized, thanks.-- Jacurek ( talk) 15:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
So Why 03:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
— BQZip01 — talk 17:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm extremely sorry. I wanted to revert and warn the vandal who did that, but you beat me to it, and I ended up warning you instead. Very sorry. Rkr1991 ( Wanna chat?) 14:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
So how does the election process work? Accdude92 ( talk) ( sign) 14:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
---|---|
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing |
The 50 DYK Medal | ||
Thank you for your excellent work and tireless devotion to DYK. Keep up the fine work and may the next 50 be as fine. Congratulations on fifty plus DYKs. Caspian blue 17:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC) |
I've been quite distracted and things I was planning to do were piling up the whole time. Sorry for not having responded for a few weeks. It looks like your article on Fritz Neumayer has made good progress meanwhile. Sciurinæ ( talk) 14:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, AdjustShift. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn ( talk) 17:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Adjustshift I hope this is formally right, I do it for the first time.
On 24 June you reverted a rather well founded and more up to date agriculture, lifestock and forestry back to your own much less up to date (basically copy&paste from Paraguay country profile. Library of Congress Federal Research Division (October 2005)) version. Absolutely uncomprehensable for me. Images you deleted, too. I re-reverted today. I also deleted your your phrase corruption keeps investors away or so. To judge by comments I see here you contribute a lot to wikipedia. Please be extra responsable when dealing with country pages, more so when it is a poor country doing its utmost to attract foreign investment. Greetings from Paraguay-- Paisano flaco ( talk) 20:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I have accidently created a redirect Battle of of Lutter am Barenberge, whereas it should be Battle of Lutter am Barenberge. Can you please speedily delete the incorrect one per db-redirtypo, thank you. I promise to be more careful in the future. Skäpperöd ( talk) 16:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Kresock, I'm missing you. Where are you these days? If you are still around, give me a ping on my talk page.
Have a nice day! AdjustShift ( talk) 06:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Giants27 ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
| |||
Don't forget that the next Military history coordinator elections take place in September. You might like to start thinking about whether you are interested in standing. More information to follow in the next edition of The Bugle. In the meantime, enjoy the remainder of the holiday season and come back refreshed and raring to go! Roger Davies talk 02:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC) |
New featured articles:
New featured lists:
New featured pictures:
New A-Class articles: | ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 18:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about the closure of [1] as no consensus (i.e. keep). There was another article where many similar arguments were presented in the AfD discussion: [2]. In that discussion, delete - keep = 4, while in the communist genocide discussion delete - keep = 6 (if I counted correctly.) Still, the former was closed as merge (i.e. delete), while the latter was closed as no consensus. I'm also curious about how you assessed the weights of the arguments at [3], since it seemed to me that many who voted "keep" presented little argumentation at all (giving only one-line "votes"), while most who voted "delete" presented lengthy argumentation. Offliner ( talk) 16:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, AdjustShift. I think you the way you closed the AfD given the arguments was correct. However here is why I believe the article is wrongfully kept: The article appeared to me as a blatant POV attack when I first noticed it at Newpages and many of the people wanting to keep the page have a history of having a certain bias/voting predictably in AfDs related to the subject, whereas most users wanting deletion were regular AfD participants who could be expected to be neutral. I'm not saying the bias was not present in both sides but it the POV attack appeared very blatant the way I saw it. If you look at the talk page of the article, this nastiness is present at once. Anyways I have tried to work with this article however I am scared off by this nastiness. I believe this incident has taught me what I should stay out of. Thanks for your time, Triplestop x3 03:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi AdjustShift,
Good day to you! I have not edited any material on WP for some time. User: Ravichandar84 is unnecessarily typing my name in edit summaries of the article Iyengar. You can see his edits here. He is the only one who is editing the article currently but he is again accusing me of having a ip sock. I am not a sock and I never used any ip sock all through my edits on WP. I do not want to disclose my gender or ethnicity here in the U.S. I request you to protect my account and please advise Ravichandar84 not to accuse me of anything. I have no grudge against anybody, but Ravichandar (a man from India) is relentlessly, unethically, unprofessionally, and belligerantly accusing me. You are also an American, you (I guess) follow principles and ethics while interacting with all people on WP and some other media. Please protect my account and please prevent any admin, or somebody from taking any negative action against my account. This is just to keep you posted of the recent happenings. I will call it a day now! Awaiting your help and professional assistance. Svr014 ( talk) 19:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear AdjustShift, I want Ravichandar84 to stop accusing me. I am an American and I am following rules on WP. There is no need to do CU on my account. I also do not want Ravichandar to dictate terms here on WP as all editors must be given equal opportunity. I have clearly elucidated to you about ethics you may be following here in the U.S. You can very well see how badly Ravichandar is arguing the toss with me. He is also using offensive words like "unethical cheats, liars and scoundrels" in his posts. Ravi sits on computer for hours together to mainly accuse me for nothing I did. I respect all wikipedians regardless of nationality. Ravi is obsessed with articles on caste (which are as sensitive as articles on race, gender, etc). I am consistent with my opinions and unlike Ravichandar I don't enforce my opinions on people. AdjustShift, please protect my account. Please advice users like Ravichandar84 NOT to accuse me. I advice Ravi to keep a low profile and try to be a good citizen of the world. Hope this fills the bill. Also, please do not ask YellowMonkey to do any harm to my account as he tends to look down on some wikipedians who are not situated in British Commonwealth Countries. This is just my opinion. Still, I respect YellowMonkey. I will call it a day now. Thanks for your time. Svr014 ( talk) 19:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, are you going to make an effort to explain your edits? Noloop ( talk) 16:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Abce2| Aww nuts! Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi AdjustShift
I don't think you comments at ANI concerning the conflict between Blofeld and Huldra were particularly helpful. It might have been the wrong venue or not, and of course nobody would get blocked over it, but calling the complaint of the one party absurd three times in a row, the actions of the other party praiseworthy, and marking the complaint as "resolved" at the same time, didn't defuse the situation, it escalated it. I saw two good-faithed and hardworking editors in a heated content dispute there. If they lock horns, we should try to calm the situation, not belittle one side.
Cheers,
Amalthea 22:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, AdjustShift. I have answered all here: User talk:Huldra#The blue soup, Huldra ( talk) 22:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the t-shirt, and for your participation in my RfA. I hope we'll get to colaborate in the future. best wishes! ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist ( talk) 10:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Do you think you could give me the authorization to upload pictures. Thank you! Ashfromthepast ( talk) 20:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for alerting me to the appearance of this article on the front page. I am greatly obliged. Tim riley ( talk) 11:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello I'm very new to wikipedia, perhaps you could show me the ropes? Himalayan 14:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that there is a odd dispute at Talk:List of Ultima characters, with some users claiming that there was a consensus at Talk:List_of_Ultima_characters#Merge_discussion although this seems dubious. There is also an RFC where the discussion seems to be getting heated: Talk:List_of_Ultima_characters#Merge_discussion. I think an experienced user or admin should try to defuse the situation before it gets worse, but I don't know where to ask for such intervention. Can you help? Offliner ( talk) 18:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I know :( It was too much for me to handle :P Aaroncrick ( talk) 21:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I see you emailed her, can you send me her email? She asked me to shoot her one but I've no idea what her address is. Staxringold talk contribs 20:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Why are you reversing my edits? I'm trying to repair some of the damage done by Bioextra. 72.1.195.4 ( talk) 14:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear AdjustShift, I sincerely request you to support me wholeheartedly in this issue. You now understand that User: Ravichandar84 is siccing me mainly because of deep-rooted hatred in his mind against me which may be based on my nationality (which is American) or based on some other unprofessional and unethical reason known only to him. He blindly accused me of having a sock way back in July 2009 (I guess on 07/06/09) WITHOUT any evidence. He also used some unprintable words like scoundrels, cheats, liars in his post mentioned above. I am really concerned that he may do some harm to me in the long run here on WP. Please respond to my requests and please protect my interests and account here on WP. Please do not discriminate against me for no reason. I am also cognizant of the fact that some Asian Indians are good people. They follow principles and ethics the way some Japanese, Americans, and others do. But I am really worried because of this man- Ravichandar. He is not willing to mend his ways here on WP but is constantly abusing and harassing other editors. Hence, please respond to my requests and please protect my account and my interests here on WP. Thanks for your time and have a nice day! Svr014 ( talk) 13:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
That's all for now. Need to get down to brass tacks with my boss. Have a nice day! Svr014 ( talk) 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
... this reason was sufficient enough to suspect User:Svr014 to be a sockpuppet of some politically minded miscreant who had vandalized Wikipedia earlier
Really? See the second section of Season. If you think vagina repeated 300 times is less vandalism than the two words in the intro, fine. You didn't give me enough time to fix all of it. Andyo2000 ( talk) 13:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I happened to run across this (which I followed to this) a little while ago. Take a very careful look at what you restored here, in particular the sources cited. --Dynaflow babble 04:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem [10]. radek ( talk) 20:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, -- A Nobody My talk 05:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Such a pleasant suprise. Thank you, sir. :-) Sciurinæ ( talk) 19:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,
Roger Davies
talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Wittgenstein is Jewish, not only insofar as he was ethnically 3/4 jewish, but also in his constant references to himself as jewish. Read Culture and Value - he always regarded himself as Jewish. He actually discusses himself as a specifically "Jewish philosopher" many times. 86.26.0.25 ( talk) 16:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Per http://www.iep.utm.edu/wittgens/#H1, he was neither halachically a Jew nor born into a Jewish family; however, he had Jewish ancestors. Halachically, Wittgenstein's mother would have to be Jewish, and she was not, as only her father was Jewish, not her (Wittgenstein's mother's) mother. Wittgenstein's father was Jewish, halachically, as conversion from Judaism is not recognized by Halacha as removing one from the faith, but as Jewishness is decided based on matrilineal descent, his father does not have any bearing. As for a non-halachic perspective, as both of his parents were practicing Christians at the time, I fail to see how he could be considered Jewish under that view as well. -- Avi ( talk) 16:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
--- The Halachical definition is irrelevant here, as he always considered himself to be categorically Jewish. [But his family was also considered Jewish by the wider society (to the extent that they only just survived the holocaust after years of legal battles, paying the Nazis off with their fortune).] On the other hand, he never considered himself to be Christian at all - although he was obsessed with the New Testament. (And yet he is listed as a Christian philosopher, despite the lack of references for this)
Also his family were not "practising Christians". It a different thing to nominally convert to christianity in order to avoid persecution, than to practice a religion.
Now as for reliable sources, I don't know where to post these on the article (how can you source categories?), but look at, for example,
Wittgenstein, Culture and Value (Oxford 1998), page 16: "The saint is the Jewish genius. Even the greatest Jewish thinker is no more than talented (myself for instance)."
Or Wittgenstein, Culture and Value (Oxford 1998), page 18:
“ | "If Jews are said not to have any sense for possession that is presumably compatible with their liking to be rich; since money is a sort of power not possession. (I should not for instant like my people to be poor, since I wish them to have a certain power. Of course, I wish them to use this power properly too.) | ” |
These are two examples, but there are hundreds of extant samples in his notes and letters where he refers to himself as Jewish. His Jewish identity was actually an obsession.
86.26.0.25 (
talk) 21:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
There are different issues here: (i)whether he thought of himself as jewish? The answer is yes. (ii)whether he was actually jewish? The answer seems subjective. (iii)whether he was a "jewish philosopher"? Who knows? Avaya1 ( talk) 16:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I just removed five more categories from the Wittgenstein article. If adding a subject to a category is not uncontrovertibly accurate then it should not be done. As far as the quotes given by Avaya1 are concerned and providing they are as he says, then I would support inclusion as I find the information noteworthy enough. Goodmorningworld ( talk) 18:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Regards -- 89.32.121.102 ( talk) 18:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I noticed you recently blocked 91.104.74.124 for 55 hours for vandalism. This user had only received a level 1 warning, and as far as I'm aware, was not reported on AIV. I'm curious as to your reasoning for this block after just one warning. Cheers! Ale_Jrb talk 15:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for the revert I was using Lupin's and it looked like you were the one vandalizing...Glad I didn't leave a warning though, Happy editing.-- SKATER Speak. 20:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You changed Kim's nationality to Canadian without any source. I have changed it back to English and provided a reference to support this. Spudbynight ( talk) 11:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
All I am doing is removing the blocked users pov edits which got him blocked in the first place hes created many accounts and im trying my best to revert his edits on the Mughal empire page 86.158.232.138 ( talk) 16:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind taking look at this user?
Dilawere123 reinstated the same exact edits as Mupper. Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 18:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey! This guy is a sock for sure of Mupper3445 Aamirshkh ( talk) 18:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You have been supporting the banned user Aamirshkh on the Mughal empire page I simply removed his POV edits hes not even allowed to edit yet you continued to support him by protecting the article and re adding his edits I will make sure Pakistani users are aware of your favouritism on the Mughal empire page and make sure his trash is removed whether you like it or not 86.156.211.56 ( talk) 09:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
| |||
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists:
New featured pictures: New A-Class articles: | ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
Looking behind the figures, some other interesting facts emerge. First, 84% of our promoted articles had successfully passed a Milhist A-Class Review before going on to FAC. Second, of the 29 Milhist articles that failed, less than half (41%) had had an A-Class Review. Third, the 97 Milhist articles accounted for 16% of all FACs submitted between January and July of this year. The clear lesson is that if you want a string of featured articles to your credit, you may find Milhist's A-class Review process to be of benefit to you! Roger Davies talk
| |||
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 18:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I reported on you on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page. Loosmark ( talk) 02:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi AdjustShift: Loosmark contacted me requesting advice on how to take his/her complaint against you further and I was duty-bound to reply. For your reference my response to Loosmark is here: User_talk:Loosmark#To_complain_about_the_conduct_of_an_admin. Regards Manning ( talk) 23:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
A.Shift, you accused me of making a false statement here [20] I wrote: I remember AdjustShift being very involved and even defending German editor from being blocked while in dispute with Polish editors. You wrote: This statement is 100% false. Here is the link to the page were you defended a German editor from being sanctioned [ [21]] I expect a clear and full clarification that I was not lying on the talk page you have made your accusations at, as well as maybe an apology. I believe that you did not remember that you did defend that editor, but yes you did, and you were involved in Polish-German disputes. At the same time perhaps you could examine your edit history and again think about it if your decision was really neutral and not dictated by luck of sympathy to the Polish editors. Thank you.-- Jacurek ( talk) 04:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
IP mentioning your warnings here. 7 04:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Voting in the
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,
Roger Davies
talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, – Juliancolton | Talk 14:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Nangparbat has sent me another message wishing to discuss current problems with me with this IP 86.153.131.65 ( talk · contribs). I don't know if it might help and I know he's breaking policy by block evading but he seems to be willing to talk and discuss the root of the problem and put aside his past actions. Would it be right to discuss the matter with him so long as he remains civil and does not start editing articles, etc. or just enforce policy? Could you advise what to do? Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 16:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for acting on my edit war report. -- Eaglestorm ( talk) 04:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
What tools do you use to apply Anon bans? Just curious and all, you picked up this one I was having issues with pretty quickly: [22] Thanks -- smadge1 ( talk) 17:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
First off, would you please stop beating me to reverting! :P
And the second thing, do you have a bot that archives your page or do you do it whenever you feel like it? --
Scythre
Talk
Contribs 16:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
I removed the block against 143.231.249.141 ( talk · contribs · logs · block log), for several reasons:
A) This IP is shared, as mentioned on the talk page, and 72 hours is too long of a block for a routine block of any shared IP. Long blocks against shared IPs need to be made cautiously and with a great deal of community and technical support, because of the fallout that can result.
B) This IP is in a sensitive ownership group, in that it is owned by a governmental agency. This is a fairly minor point, and being governmental certainly doesn't excuse any vandalism or leave the IP immune to blocking, it simply means that blocks against it should be placed with the knowledge that they may be subject to extra scrutiny and should be placed with good cause.
C) The edits leading to this block did not seem to rise to the level of vandalism. They had only made three edits today. I assume the block was placed because of the removal of a paragraph from Flags of the Confederate States of America , but that is not automatically vandalism. Yes, they should have explained their edit, and perhaps it was without merit. One could point out that section was unsourced, and partially original research. This edit should have been reverted at most, though I'm not even sure that it warranted a revert.
Please consider these things as you block IPs in the future. I see that you do a lot of vandalism patrol, and that work is certainly important to the project and I appreciate it. It's easy when in the heat of trying to keep up with the recent changes to quickly block and forget users, but we must be sure that our blocks are placed with good cause and with an understanding of how blocks can appear to users, especially the casual users who might just be starting to edit Wikipedia after seeing an error. They're in the process of converting from reader to editor, and we want to encourage that to happen in a positive way.
Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
| |||
Greetings to all members of the Military history WikiProject, and to those outside the project who receive this news letter as well! My name is TomStar81, and it with a great sense of pride that I assume the position of lead coordinator for the project. On behalf of all the coordinators, both new and returning, we wish to thank those of you who participated in the September elections, and we look forward to working to advance the goals of the project for the next six months. With the elections concluded, there are two changes. First, Roger Davies has been appointed a coordinator emeritus, joining our first coordinator emeritus Kirill Lokshin. Secondly, for the first time ever, the lead coordinator for the Military history WikiProject will be taking a lengthy wikibreak. For those who were unaware of this, I am an undergraduate student, and will be taking a leave of absence, effective end September, to focus on graduating in December. However, with fourteen coordinators, and two coordinators emeritus, I am confident the needs of the project will be well taken care of. For the VIII coordinator tranche, TomStar81 ( Talk) |
New featured articles:
New featured lists: New featured topics: New featured pictures: New A-Class articles: | ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 23:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi again. It seems Nangparbat created another sock and is warring over a couple articles with several users (they also seem to know that it's Nangparbat):
Nishkid blocked SupraTomas23 as a sock of Nangparbat yesterday. Tazer43 keeps removing the sockpuppet tags for SupraTomas23. It would seem that Tazer43 is also SupraTomas23. Elockid ( Talk· Contribs) 14:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Here he comes again, 86.162.69.197 ( talk). Qazmlp1029 ( talk) 15:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank You very much. Qazmlp1029 ( talk) 15:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
ping Skäpperöd ( talk) 16:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
.. but why this [25] relatively short recent block, given the previous block history? Philip Trueman ( talk) 17:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
An IP you just blocked has switched IPs, to 82.29.1.10 ( talk · contribs). I've tacked this onto the report. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Did you know 07:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you you protect my page[ [27]] please, it is being vandalized, thanks.-- Jacurek ( talk) 15:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
So Why 03:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
— BQZip01 — talk 17:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm extremely sorry. I wanted to revert and warn the vandal who did that, but you beat me to it, and I ended up warning you instead. Very sorry. Rkr1991 ( Wanna chat?) 14:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
So how does the election process work? Accdude92 ( talk) ( sign) 14:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
---|---|
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing |