![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Having a bad day, too many edit wars, everything a bit too much? We all know how you feel.
Now you can tell everyone about it, get the new Level 5 WikiStress Meter you see here. Use is very simple and template driven. Check it out here.
Lucanos has updated this for use with the 'regular' 3D stress meter template. Just insert '5' as the template parameter ;-)
As a new user, I have landed in this discussion quite by chance when editing Tony Blair to attempt to make the article more readable. I was unaware of the controversy regarding floating TOC's, and simply reverted another users TOCright to TOCleft - this gave, IMHO, a much improved and more accessible layout. Anyway, I am of the opinion that the 'default' plain TOC should be used most of the time unless the layout becomes less than optimum due to the size of intro or TOC length. In these situations I think a floated TOC is acceptable, but personally I would think left is usually preferable.
62.163.46.157 ( talk · contribs), as you can see from his contributions, came to Wikipedia solely to insert external links, just to draw attention to his site or to make money from advertising. I remove these links without discussion. The Wikipedia policy for external links is being violated on a large scale, and especially health-related articles are frequently inundated with poor links. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I posted it on Image for deletion instead because the speedy deletion policy states that "This does not include pictures that are merely similar, such as JPEG versions of PNG images." This is because of the advantages and disadvantages of each image file format; not everything can clearly be transferred. For instance, PNG's format is more suited for diagrams while JPEG is better for photographs. Thus, as a general policy, we do not speedy them right away. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
The current text of the article is dense and confusing, so I've taken a copy of it to my sandbox for a major re-write. I'm still working on trimming down the existing text. Once that's done I will research additional information (including the Pele thing, which I remember from somewhere too) to build it back up again.
I would also like to support your campaign to name major London landmarks after Scottish footballers. ;-) -- GraemeL (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I am relieved that other people appreciate the idea of documenting the confinement of the detainees.
But I have to tell you -- you said the list existed long before I started adding to it? That isn't correct. I started it about, two weeks ago, when I created eight or nine articles about individual Guantanamo detainees, and five of them were suggested for deletion. Half a dozen people suggested that they weren't notable to merit individual article, and that they should all merely be listed in a list of Guantanamo Bay detainees.
About hidden agendas... I won't presume to say that Joauquin has a hidden agenda. But catch this comment: So discuss their treatment (in a neutral way) in the article about the prison, but an article about each one of these non-notable people is only America-bashing. -- Geo Swan 22:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The Democracy article experienced 3 edits almost at the exact same time, including my revert. Not sure what the purpose was of your telling me about correcting the missed vandalism was about, but thanks.-- MONGO 10:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Friendly admin. Hmmm. Yeah. I know a guy. I am glad you like the map tool. I do like it, but it has its limits. I generate the maps, but use irfanview (a free download) for the captions. I came across some recommended guidelines for maps generated for the wikipedia. It listed some recommended colours, which this tool can't do. :-(
Thanks for the support. :-) -- Geo Swan 16:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and advice in improving the Carolyn Wood article.
Would you car to take a look at the Jeffrey Waruch article, and the recent {AfD} applied to it?
JM said it should be merged. But the tag they applied to it was {AfD} not {mergeto}.
I have an email address registered with the wikipedia. Feel free to use it to contact me. -- Geo Swan 15:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Cactus-Person
I have dragged this over here so you can see it tambien. It is my gift to Geoswan. I have edited it just for you.
First, let me accept User:Geoswan's apology, placed on my talk page. He has made several accusations in anger, perhaps he is very young? Such conduct does not further his advocacy of the movement to free the detainees in Guantanamo.
Second, I customarily do not use the phrase "Gitmo", which I consider to be a symbol of Anglo and Scottish-American domination. (Tom Jefferson played the fiddle, he learned from the generation of Scots who preceded the Revolution). So I would ask you, User:Cactus Man to refrain from using that unattractive, overly-gutteral nickname. "Guantanamo" is svelte, linguistically-appropriate, and, of course, the actual name. Please reconsider your use of the phrase "Gitmo" as well as the socio-economic implications of nicknames imposed by your Anglo society on ours.
Third, I have rewritten several of the Guantanamo articles to eliminate the obvious POV problems and to correct what can only be described as glaring grammatical errors and generally terrible, horrible, no good, very bad writing.
With respect to the copyvio, Geoswan has spent more time karping about it than it would take to fix a table that was obviously lifted from the newspaper. So I gave him a source with original documents in .pdf I have other sources too. They are all online. Most are public domain. Why not improve the article?
And, as I said to Geo, if you are going to use Wikipedia to agitprop, then do it with class.
Con safos
Joaquin Murietta Stamping Out Oppression, One Palabra at a Time
PS Have you any interest in the Duke of Atholl?
5 la voz de la gente
Joaquin, thank you for your interesting message on my talk page. You may believe you are the voice of the people, but you are mistaken. You are merely pushing your own POV by gaming the WP system through bad faith AfD copy-vio nominations. By all means express your views on article talk pages, and by discussion we can all reach concensus. I am still of the opinion that your AfD copy-vio nomination was a 'back door' suppression of valid information that did not accord with your POV and was wholly inappropriate.
As to the points made in your message, my response, in your order, is:
First: any apology you wish to issue should be sent to User:Geo Swan, not me.
Second: I do not use the phrase "Gitmo" either, never have, and never will.
What exactly is the subject of the Anglo and Scottish-American domination that you speak of? What has Thomas Jefferson's alleged fiddle playing prowess got to do with the Guantanamo Bay detainees? Which society is "ours" that you refer to that has been imposed upon by "my" Anglo society? I can only assume you are referring to Cuba.
Third: You are free to edit articles as you see fit. As with all edits, this will be open to review and alteration by other editors. As regards the alleged copy-vio, well we both know that was a bad faith nomination, come on now Joaquin, let's move on and edit articles properly and discuss differences responsibly.
As for accusations of engaging in Agitprop, I suggest you drop a line to User:Randy2063 who is on the same wavelength.
Finally, I am not a fan of any of the the particular incarnations of the Dukes of Atholl, nor am I an expert on fiddlers.
Good luck. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Apologies for my lack of research, but could you please post a map of Aztlán so that we can all understand where you are from - USA or Mexico? Regards. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Kindest possible regards from Aztlan Joaquin Murietta
What a great start to the day, thanks Joaquin, you bring light, mirth and happiness by confirming that you are indeed a Troll. -- Cactus.man ✍ 06:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I have edited Benyam Mohammed to cure the obvious POV issues and have added basic facts for any bio, such as date of birth, full name, the dates of events. The problem, is that Geo Swan, with your support, is on a mission to create these hundreds of politically motivated stubs, for the sole purpose of getting more hits on Google, on the Guantanamo detainee issue.
This is unfair to the subjects because he forgets to include the basic information one would put in any bio. Please see my comments at Talk:Benyam Mohammed. See also Leonard Weinglass, which I created versus Geo Swan's version of Clive Stafford Smith.
How does it help Wikipedia to have all these poorly-written stubs? Why don't you encourage him to clean them up? Joaquin Murietta 15:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Joaquin, there is not much more to be said on this matter, but some points need to be clarified:
OK, lets consider this issue closed. I hope you and Geo can work out your differences amicably, and we can all get on with the task at hand. Regards. -- Cactus.man ✍ 07:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I just edited Abderrahman Ahmad. I added his date of birth. Also, it appears your friend got his name wrong and he was arrested in Pakistan not Afghanistan. I deleted some irrelevant stuff and some NPOV outdated links. I added some recent news. Please let me know if these edits offend you in any way. By the way, I added a definition the List of political epithets. I was inspired by you! Cheers, old chap! Joaquin Murietta 18:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Charming photo of your mother! Joaquin Murietta 05:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
For the speedy reversion of my user page. My first! Patroling recent changes certainly brings its own special rewards. :D — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 10:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I noticed your harsh improvised warning to a user who had only made one revert. See User talk:202.159.197.213. Perhaps you might consider the Wikipedia Warning templates, which provide consistency and assistance with your conclusions. Joaquin Murietta 08:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Joaquin, I am making one last effort to explain to you, in good faith, the reason for my warning on User:202.159.197.213's talk page. If you check my history of reverting vandalism you will see that I very rarely post warnings on user talk pages. Normally I find that after a one or two reverts they realise that there is no point in vandalising and they give up. Normally, if I do need to post a warning, I would start with Template:Test1. In this case however, the blanking was substantial and seemed to be specifically targeted to certain sections. I made a judgement call that this was not just a newbie test and applied the appropriate first level warning for blanking vandalism, Template:Test2a. Please carefully read the guidance at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warning_templates which you eagerly flagged up on my user page. The appropriate section reads:
This was precisely what I did in this case. This was not a harsh improvised warning as you incorrectly claim. Please be aware of facts before making accusations. The exact same blanking was then repeated twice by the same user, and once by you, restoring his blanking by reverting my clean up !!
I was surprised to see your response on the user talk page, and then my talk page merely 10 minutes or so after I posted the warning. I can only assume that you were monitoring my edits, which seems to be a relic from the User:Geo Swan / List of Guantanamo Bay detainees copy vio episode. I urged you at the time to resolve your differences with User:Geo Swan and move on to constructive editing. You seem to have made a lot of contributions in the shape of worthy new articles, but there still seems to be some element of personal animosity remaining over the previous episode. Please do not fall back into this unhelpful pattern. We can all make valuable contributions to this endeavour in our own way, and when there is disagreement, resolve it by constructive discussion.
I am hoping that you will not blank this explanation as you did with my last attempt to communicate regarding your comments to me. -- Cactus.man ✍ 11:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
In response to your comments on my talk page, I looked at the last few days of your user contributions. You are correct, you do not generally post second level warnings on anonymous user's talk pages. I assumed the worst because of your confrontational tone, ethnic remarks to me and other conduct. Joaquin Murietta 15:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Having a bad day, too many edit wars, everything a bit too much? We all know how you feel.
Now you can tell everyone about it, get the new Level 5 WikiStress Meter you see here. Use is very simple and template driven. Check it out here.
Lucanos has updated this for use with the 'regular' 3D stress meter template. Just insert '5' as the template parameter ;-)
As a new user, I have landed in this discussion quite by chance when editing Tony Blair to attempt to make the article more readable. I was unaware of the controversy regarding floating TOC's, and simply reverted another users TOCright to TOCleft - this gave, IMHO, a much improved and more accessible layout. Anyway, I am of the opinion that the 'default' plain TOC should be used most of the time unless the layout becomes less than optimum due to the size of intro or TOC length. In these situations I think a floated TOC is acceptable, but personally I would think left is usually preferable.
62.163.46.157 ( talk · contribs), as you can see from his contributions, came to Wikipedia solely to insert external links, just to draw attention to his site or to make money from advertising. I remove these links without discussion. The Wikipedia policy for external links is being violated on a large scale, and especially health-related articles are frequently inundated with poor links. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I posted it on Image for deletion instead because the speedy deletion policy states that "This does not include pictures that are merely similar, such as JPEG versions of PNG images." This is because of the advantages and disadvantages of each image file format; not everything can clearly be transferred. For instance, PNG's format is more suited for diagrams while JPEG is better for photographs. Thus, as a general policy, we do not speedy them right away. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
The current text of the article is dense and confusing, so I've taken a copy of it to my sandbox for a major re-write. I'm still working on trimming down the existing text. Once that's done I will research additional information (including the Pele thing, which I remember from somewhere too) to build it back up again.
I would also like to support your campaign to name major London landmarks after Scottish footballers. ;-) -- GraemeL (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I am relieved that other people appreciate the idea of documenting the confinement of the detainees.
But I have to tell you -- you said the list existed long before I started adding to it? That isn't correct. I started it about, two weeks ago, when I created eight or nine articles about individual Guantanamo detainees, and five of them were suggested for deletion. Half a dozen people suggested that they weren't notable to merit individual article, and that they should all merely be listed in a list of Guantanamo Bay detainees.
About hidden agendas... I won't presume to say that Joauquin has a hidden agenda. But catch this comment: So discuss their treatment (in a neutral way) in the article about the prison, but an article about each one of these non-notable people is only America-bashing. -- Geo Swan 22:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The Democracy article experienced 3 edits almost at the exact same time, including my revert. Not sure what the purpose was of your telling me about correcting the missed vandalism was about, but thanks.-- MONGO 10:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Friendly admin. Hmmm. Yeah. I know a guy. I am glad you like the map tool. I do like it, but it has its limits. I generate the maps, but use irfanview (a free download) for the captions. I came across some recommended guidelines for maps generated for the wikipedia. It listed some recommended colours, which this tool can't do. :-(
Thanks for the support. :-) -- Geo Swan 16:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and advice in improving the Carolyn Wood article.
Would you car to take a look at the Jeffrey Waruch article, and the recent {AfD} applied to it?
JM said it should be merged. But the tag they applied to it was {AfD} not {mergeto}.
I have an email address registered with the wikipedia. Feel free to use it to contact me. -- Geo Swan 15:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Cactus-Person
I have dragged this over here so you can see it tambien. It is my gift to Geoswan. I have edited it just for you.
First, let me accept User:Geoswan's apology, placed on my talk page. He has made several accusations in anger, perhaps he is very young? Such conduct does not further his advocacy of the movement to free the detainees in Guantanamo.
Second, I customarily do not use the phrase "Gitmo", which I consider to be a symbol of Anglo and Scottish-American domination. (Tom Jefferson played the fiddle, he learned from the generation of Scots who preceded the Revolution). So I would ask you, User:Cactus Man to refrain from using that unattractive, overly-gutteral nickname. "Guantanamo" is svelte, linguistically-appropriate, and, of course, the actual name. Please reconsider your use of the phrase "Gitmo" as well as the socio-economic implications of nicknames imposed by your Anglo society on ours.
Third, I have rewritten several of the Guantanamo articles to eliminate the obvious POV problems and to correct what can only be described as glaring grammatical errors and generally terrible, horrible, no good, very bad writing.
With respect to the copyvio, Geoswan has spent more time karping about it than it would take to fix a table that was obviously lifted from the newspaper. So I gave him a source with original documents in .pdf I have other sources too. They are all online. Most are public domain. Why not improve the article?
And, as I said to Geo, if you are going to use Wikipedia to agitprop, then do it with class.
Con safos
Joaquin Murietta Stamping Out Oppression, One Palabra at a Time
PS Have you any interest in the Duke of Atholl?
5 la voz de la gente
Joaquin, thank you for your interesting message on my talk page. You may believe you are the voice of the people, but you are mistaken. You are merely pushing your own POV by gaming the WP system through bad faith AfD copy-vio nominations. By all means express your views on article talk pages, and by discussion we can all reach concensus. I am still of the opinion that your AfD copy-vio nomination was a 'back door' suppression of valid information that did not accord with your POV and was wholly inappropriate.
As to the points made in your message, my response, in your order, is:
First: any apology you wish to issue should be sent to User:Geo Swan, not me.
Second: I do not use the phrase "Gitmo" either, never have, and never will.
What exactly is the subject of the Anglo and Scottish-American domination that you speak of? What has Thomas Jefferson's alleged fiddle playing prowess got to do with the Guantanamo Bay detainees? Which society is "ours" that you refer to that has been imposed upon by "my" Anglo society? I can only assume you are referring to Cuba.
Third: You are free to edit articles as you see fit. As with all edits, this will be open to review and alteration by other editors. As regards the alleged copy-vio, well we both know that was a bad faith nomination, come on now Joaquin, let's move on and edit articles properly and discuss differences responsibly.
As for accusations of engaging in Agitprop, I suggest you drop a line to User:Randy2063 who is on the same wavelength.
Finally, I am not a fan of any of the the particular incarnations of the Dukes of Atholl, nor am I an expert on fiddlers.
Good luck. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Apologies for my lack of research, but could you please post a map of Aztlán so that we can all understand where you are from - USA or Mexico? Regards. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Kindest possible regards from Aztlan Joaquin Murietta
What a great start to the day, thanks Joaquin, you bring light, mirth and happiness by confirming that you are indeed a Troll. -- Cactus.man ✍ 06:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I have edited Benyam Mohammed to cure the obvious POV issues and have added basic facts for any bio, such as date of birth, full name, the dates of events. The problem, is that Geo Swan, with your support, is on a mission to create these hundreds of politically motivated stubs, for the sole purpose of getting more hits on Google, on the Guantanamo detainee issue.
This is unfair to the subjects because he forgets to include the basic information one would put in any bio. Please see my comments at Talk:Benyam Mohammed. See also Leonard Weinglass, which I created versus Geo Swan's version of Clive Stafford Smith.
How does it help Wikipedia to have all these poorly-written stubs? Why don't you encourage him to clean them up? Joaquin Murietta 15:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Joaquin, there is not much more to be said on this matter, but some points need to be clarified:
OK, lets consider this issue closed. I hope you and Geo can work out your differences amicably, and we can all get on with the task at hand. Regards. -- Cactus.man ✍ 07:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I just edited Abderrahman Ahmad. I added his date of birth. Also, it appears your friend got his name wrong and he was arrested in Pakistan not Afghanistan. I deleted some irrelevant stuff and some NPOV outdated links. I added some recent news. Please let me know if these edits offend you in any way. By the way, I added a definition the List of political epithets. I was inspired by you! Cheers, old chap! Joaquin Murietta 18:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Charming photo of your mother! Joaquin Murietta 05:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
For the speedy reversion of my user page. My first! Patroling recent changes certainly brings its own special rewards. :D — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 10:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I noticed your harsh improvised warning to a user who had only made one revert. See User talk:202.159.197.213. Perhaps you might consider the Wikipedia Warning templates, which provide consistency and assistance with your conclusions. Joaquin Murietta 08:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Joaquin, I am making one last effort to explain to you, in good faith, the reason for my warning on User:202.159.197.213's talk page. If you check my history of reverting vandalism you will see that I very rarely post warnings on user talk pages. Normally I find that after a one or two reverts they realise that there is no point in vandalising and they give up. Normally, if I do need to post a warning, I would start with Template:Test1. In this case however, the blanking was substantial and seemed to be specifically targeted to certain sections. I made a judgement call that this was not just a newbie test and applied the appropriate first level warning for blanking vandalism, Template:Test2a. Please carefully read the guidance at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warning_templates which you eagerly flagged up on my user page. The appropriate section reads:
This was precisely what I did in this case. This was not a harsh improvised warning as you incorrectly claim. Please be aware of facts before making accusations. The exact same blanking was then repeated twice by the same user, and once by you, restoring his blanking by reverting my clean up !!
I was surprised to see your response on the user talk page, and then my talk page merely 10 minutes or so after I posted the warning. I can only assume that you were monitoring my edits, which seems to be a relic from the User:Geo Swan / List of Guantanamo Bay detainees copy vio episode. I urged you at the time to resolve your differences with User:Geo Swan and move on to constructive editing. You seem to have made a lot of contributions in the shape of worthy new articles, but there still seems to be some element of personal animosity remaining over the previous episode. Please do not fall back into this unhelpful pattern. We can all make valuable contributions to this endeavour in our own way, and when there is disagreement, resolve it by constructive discussion.
I am hoping that you will not blank this explanation as you did with my last attempt to communicate regarding your comments to me. -- Cactus.man ✍ 11:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
In response to your comments on my talk page, I looked at the last few days of your user contributions. You are correct, you do not generally post second level warnings on anonymous user's talk pages. I assumed the worst because of your confrontational tone, ethnic remarks to me and other conduct. Joaquin Murietta 15:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)