I just don't appreciate my comments being deleted, thanks. Regardless, he's all yours. The Rambling Man 11:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
For laughing in the face of the United States Government, which I don't encourage but snicker at myself, I award you a ugly, generic, meaningless heart of a purple tent. — Moe ε 12:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: my mail earlier today. After telling Bill what was going on it seems that I may have "fingered" the wrong person. See User talk:BillCJ under "Sorry Bill...". As I noted there, the block and "resulting" e-mail to me may have been coincidental. Still a problem user, just a different problem user! Maury 17:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I didn't. Why did you revert those page moves, and change the links to point to irrelevant articles? - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 21:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Your welcome! I'll make a short list now because I can't remember off the top of my head that were moved twice (it was only like 3-4 pages). Many of the moves were reversing the names alphabetically, which while I would normally agree with, the move log showed on some of them there was a prefered revision after a discussion, so moving without discussion, after a discussion, was counter-productive. There was a couple I agreed with but they didn't have anything to do with the international relations articles. Although there the article that was named "Country A-Country B Friendship" that he properly moved, that was good, other than that the moves were rather improper without discussion. I must say though, these articles are really unmatched (i.e some use "American" "U.S." or "United States" in the title) and that probably is my biggest concern with these articles. — Moe ε 06:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
This had me a bit confused until I figured out what's going on. Thanks for reverting. — Alex( U| C| E) 07:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For not letting inane POV pushed criticisms get in the way of doing your job, and for apparently being one of few who seems to be truly neutral around here Coldmachine Talk 13:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC) |
Should this be the object of an RFC? I am going to poll other editors I really respect, but thought you should know. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it may be ipremature - or irrelevant. Things have changed around here and I may be missing something myself, but I though RFC's were a very informal and generl way to seek more general attention on any issue. In this case, I think there are a few editors who fundamentally want to get rid of NOR, but in the specific edit above I thin one editor is severly misrepresenting what a policy is and how disputes over policy should be handled ... these are questions that I think more experienced editors would have a lot to say about, and I was wondering if there was a way to attract the attention of more experienced editors to see if they wanted to respond to this editor's comment. Am I misunderstanding RFC? I ask sincerely - there is a lot that has happened at WP over the past two years that I do not understand (largely because life has demanded more of my attention). I was merely looking for a way to open up discussion to a wider audience, not to make a complaint against personal conduct. Is that not possible? Also, I thought given your own experience and commitment to WP you personally might have a comment in response to this editor's claims, in this specific instiance about "policy" in general, and in other recent edits to the NOR page, about NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I completely understand what Wikipedia is and isn't and how fickle its guardians are. The links added were to a respected source which offers the latest news on many scientific topics - other links from Wikipedia show that the people that follow existing links from Wikipedia to the articles in Null-Hypothesis tend to read them fully. I understand that to the American mindset the British way of allowing humour to creep in to serious matters does not sit well but to many Wiki readers it does. Null-Hypothesis has many highly qualified authors writing on subjects they have PhDs in - to arbitrarily reject them is somewhat obtuse. Please reconsider and reinstate the information or provide detailed and non-general reasons for Nazi-esque policing of Wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.190.50 ( talk) 10:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Because you'd delete them? There does seem to be a recurring pattern here of you deleting links, doesn't there? Perhaps if you read and researched, before making edits we could avoid your usual defacing of wikipedia, and your malicious, and erroneous comments? Perhaps in future you should stick to editing what you know, and leave all else well alone, either that or leave wikipedia to those willing to edit it professionally, and courteously? Further malicious edits will be reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.63.23 ( talk) 12:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[1] obviously trying to evade -- an announcing it, can you beat that? ← BenB4 01:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You have closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chata-hradna some time ago, but the article remains undeleted. Just a friendly reminder: Would you mind deleting that article when you have time? Cheers. Tankred 00:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Please check your email. Thanks.... NeutralHomer T: C 03:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
At times I drop in on this article's talk page, to see what's being discussed (concerning improvements). In doing so, I've noticed 'El Jigue' has made the talk-page his 'gossip colunm' (Fidel's possible death & Raul's possible retirement plans). Isn't EJ pushing the ignore all rules too far? GoodDay 19:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who added the "Manufacturers" section, but on things which are mainly used by universities, it is nice to know where to look for further information and tools
The only problem with that section is keeping it from being constantly vandalized, so unless theres a way to restrict edits to authorized users, it might be best to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admartch ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Howdy, just replied to your email. Navou banter 19:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Based on the contribution period, articles concentrated on, and behavior of removing talk when he is through with it, I believe that User:Manutdglory is a sock-puppet of User:Englandfan7, who was banned indefinitely after sock-puppeting with User:Iwualum05. I'm letting you know as you have dealt with this user before. Thanks! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ingushetia is undoing the same section after being warned.
Ingushetia's Revision
Does this call for any action?
--
DogGunn
07:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It could very well be in my interest, but not writing an edit summary in talk is no excuse to revert. You cannot revert a page simply because they did not fill out something on Talk or write an edit summary. No problem with the version has been stated. There is no point in making trouble with something that does not need it. -- Shamir1 04:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you disagree with this change or was that just an oversight? -- tariqabjotu 04:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I did not revert anything to "months back". What is your problem? The "economic competitiveness" was there already. [2] I simply changed "competition" to "competitiveness" to reflect the survey and Wikipedia's summary. That is not reverting or "reintroducing", let alone to months back. -- Shamir1 04:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
user:Dirtydowntown is vandalising this article you have semi-protected.. OOps, meant to sign Quantpole 12:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Would you be so kind as to provide a third party opinion on a little dispute we have on talk of Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan)? We have a dispute as to whether sources support the statement that a certain region was a part of a larger one. Thanks in advance. -- Grandmaster 12:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I responded to the question you asked in this Arbitration enforcement notice board [3]. Please read it when you get the chance. I do not wish to dispute your decision regarding Arranis, but I believe my action to revert the name change made by User:Grandmaster from the original Arranis to Caucasian Albanians was legitimate since he never produced any consensus among the editors in that article for the move or any scholarly consensus for such an action. Dfitzgerald 16:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's good to be back. ^ demon [omg plz] 13:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: if you do unblock this fellow, subject to mentoring, I do think he should still be subject to revert limitation and probation (or whatever they're calling it these days) for a time-span of at least six months? Best, Moreschi Talk 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi El C, thanks for considering unblocking user:Andranikpasha. Just my opinion but it was kind of hastily done considering he is still a newbie and was proven to not be a sock of anyone. I think through this experience, he has already learned much and I, like other contributors, should be ready to help him learn more and guide him. Thanks again. - Fedayee 23:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, the parole has no time limitations, at least the arbcom decision says nothing about it and all users are placed under supervision indefinitely. -- Grandmaster 05:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
El C, please also note that your warning is the second one given to VartanM, he was previously warned by the admin. See [5] At the same time, yesterday 2 editors were placed on parole without any warning at all: [6] [7] It is kind of not fair that some editors get 2 warnings, and others none at all. Grandmaster 09:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I forgot another one: Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan). The section repeating the same info with minor variations is called Boundaries: [10] It is impossible to find an article that has any relation to Azerbaijan that does not contain speculations about the name. Grandmaster 12:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do, I have been mentoring him via email already. He promised to stay away from controversial articles. VartanM 03:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I simply mentioned the Armenian thing to show how absurd your accusations are, I was being sarcastic (not actually accusing you), and I'm glad that you now understand that. You arent trying to imply that Khosrow II and I are the same person, then what was this check user about: [13]
When you had initially asked for that checkuser, I was confused and couldnt understand why so I didnt even bother saying anything because I knew that no connection would come up, as I'm certainly not that user. So please, retract your words and from now on assume good faith as per the arbcom. Hajji Piruz 05:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting that edit on Virginia Tech massacre. I have no idea why 24.124.109.67 is so insistent on adding that separator into the article. \/\/AYCOOL27 talk 07:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure why you reverted this article back to some interum version (a brand new version that amalgamated several old versions and seems to ignore all reliable sources) and left the comment "looks a bit more stable presentation". Looks compared to what? There is ample evidence in Talk:Milky Way that this version is wrong in many ways. Are we to toss out all edits and to halt all editing (page lock) untill everyone agrees on the talk page? If so I would assume you should have reverted back to the GA version. I will wait for you to explain your comments befor i revert your edit (maybe there is something I missed). Halfblue 13:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with him being blocked. Dab is a blatant vandal. Look at the edit history of Aramaic history and read his reasons for vandalism under the Assyrian people talk page. Sharru Kinnu III 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
(copied from their IP talk page) I'm not particularly happy with this user's bias, but the lowercase "jews" usage dates back a while in the article (days at least), and doesn't seem to be something El Jigue added. I think you may have been too hasty on that point... Georgewilliamherbert 23:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It was unrelated to the lowercase "jew," which, I neither implied El Jigue authored (I didn't check) nor that he was aware of the modern, mostly-internet-age connotations behind this usage; the block was over his insinuation of racialism/ethnocentrism on my part. [17] Just because everyone is afraid to block El Jigue, doesn't mean there isn't a long record of personal attacks, bad faith, and disruptive provocations. El_C 02:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Dude, you have no idea what Internet Archive is. It is a non-profit organization that works with Project Gutenberg and other Open Source Content contributors. They have over 250,000 public domain scanned books online, besides Google Books it is the single largest book scanning project in the world. -- 71.191.36.194 03:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi El C. I noticed that you removed the protection tag from Leck mich im Arsch, but you didn't unprotect the article. What did you mean to do? Melsaran ( talk) 11:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Friend,Falun Gong a system of mind-body cultivation practice. And lays emphasis on cultivation of heart-nature on xinxing. Kindly go through the teachings, all of which are available online at http://www.falundafa.org and you can then judge for yourself. The most cruel forms of injustice are being committed against innocent people and their families. And the CCP has spread a lot of lies to justify this persecution. As they say all that is needed for the triumph of evil people is good men not doing anything. Kindly go through www.ninecommentaries.com am sure you will find the articles there tremendously insightful. Thankyou :) Dilip rajeev 11:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It's all my fault. I created this subpage for discussing the hot-button Kiev-Kyiv naming isue, essentially to keep it all together, plus to keep the Talk:Kiev page itself available for discussing other matters, which had become very difficult. I thought I was being clever... but it's come home to roost. See this appeal on my page. I can't read all that! Especially since I can barely read at all. :-( There are archives, yet! I'm always asking you to bail me out, it seems... but could you possibly drop by Talk:Kiev/naming and bring your masterful Gordian knot-cutter ? Bishonen | talk 12:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC).
Heartening to know there are still a few "ordinary" wikipedia editors keeping an eye on this article. I was beginning to feel a bit alone fighting blatant POV-pushers. Thanks for stopping by! Ohconfucius 14:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure whether you know about Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Workshop but I think - when you have time - yours is an important voice that needs to be added there. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. The history of the name Azerbaijan is not spammed anywhere. Where is it spammed? The information removed from the ADR article was completely relevant, and completely different than the content of the main article itself (it was summarized). Also, I checked the history and User:Khosrow II's "The name" section was completely different than the section removed. I dont even see what Khosrow II has to do with anything, if you warned that person a long time ago about spamming then what does it have to do with me and what was the point of mentioning it? Also, regarding the information, how does that section fall under Wikipedia:Spam? Thanks. Hajji Piruz 20:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Could you please explain why the request for Move at the Kyiv page was closed? It seemed that the people in the discussion were willing for it to go on for one week. Thanks, Horlo 23:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Could you explain why it was closable? Thanks, Horlo 01:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I am re-listing the RM for Kiev as it was closed without giving adequate time for everyone interested to participate. The RM notice was only placed on the talk:Kiev page on September 14, 2007, therefore the RM was extended to September 21, 2007. The article is also under review for GA status, so that will bring in some comments as well. I just do not want to see the same mistake made on July 30, 2007 repeated. That RM was closed in 15 hours. A week seems reasonable to me, what do you think? 199.125.109.35 04:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Where do you see that written? How can a closing admin designate a different timeframe from one that has been publicly announced? If you as an admin didn't like the timeframe you can certainly discuss changing it, but to change it with no discussion is just wrong. The whole problem with this mess is that the last RM was closed in 15 hours, with the reason given that it was not opened in good faith. Now you want to close this one in less than 48 hours? That is hardly an improvement, and will become a contentious issue if not rectified. Look you and I both know what the result is going to be, but please, make sure that the process is fairly done. 199.125.109.35 06:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not clear as to the intent of the second of your comments here. [24] Would it be possible for you to clarify? Thanks - Raymond Arritt 02:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I have opened Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Giovanni33 where you are a named party. You may wish to make a statement to the Committee there. Durova Charge! 03:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Do the "forces which favour banning Giovanni" and "are participants in the Committee mailing list" refer to me? I started the thread, yes, but I was putting the question to the community in order to resolve the problem, not simply blocking. I agreed with you about evenhandedness, (or at least, I raised that worry in the thread, too, and before you did, now that I look back), and I certainly was not happy to see the issue moved to CSN for an attempted vote to summarily ban him and derail productive discussion. I don't use the mailing list to advocate banning of political rivals, (and in this case, I think you might you might be surprised to hear what my political view really are, not that I ever discuss them on Wikipedia). Dmcdevit· t 04:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding linkage/parity, you may wish to review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal where Ilena attempted to build a case against another named party as it was becoming increasingly clear that she was headed for a siteban. [25] [26] This effort nearly succeeded, although Fyslee has turned out to be a pretty good editor without that particular disruptive influence. See User:Fyslee/Barnstars.
Also, in the current Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson case arbitrators were moving toward identical remedies for both editors until I dug around looking for evidence of a primary aggressor and requested a checkuser. Turned out Jmfangio was the reincarnation of a community banned editor and a third editor, unnamed in the arbitration case, was a low key long term vandal and had timed an impersonation account to coincide with one of Chrisjnelson's blocks. Both Jmfangio and the Notre Dame vandal are indefinitely blocked now, along with their sockfarms, and the Committee is deciding what to do with Chrisjnelson.
Obviously Giovanni33 and John Smith's are different from Ilena, Fyslee, Jmfangio, and Chrisjnelson. I raise these examples to demonstrate how important it is to examine each editor's behavior separately rather than assume parity in a messy situation. I've expressed this idea in different words at WP:ANI and WP:CSN and all of my actions are consistent with it. So please consider revising your statement at WP:RFAR: a good reputation takes a lot of hard work to build. Durova Charge! 04:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you help with removing bot tags from the Patria Roja and GUAS symbols, thanks. IMHO, the fair use guideline tagging has gone berserk, and some sort of collective intervention is necessary. I forces thousands of editors extra work, it accidentally leads to deletion of material that definately has a place in wikis and just makes people tired. Rules and regulations must serve a function, at this point functionality is subordinated to regulations. I still cannot understand the logic of having to write an essay to motive something as simple as "this symbol is the logo of xxx, to be used in the article of xxx". -- Soman 06:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Not that I blame you for this, you understand, but I'm hoping you might have a clue how to fix it. Commons images are being deleted left and right; now Solar System has no lead. Where are these images going and how do we get them back? Serendipod ous 14:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
And I don't appreciate you blanking your own talk page to erase my question. I pointed out what he said and I showed it wasn't true. So where is the attack? Sharru Kinnu III 23:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
What do you want to see, I will show it to you, just tell me what you need to know, I'll bring sources if thats what you want. Hajji Piruz 00:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Here are direct reference to the language of the Arranis (prior to Turkification, and note, they were not Armenians, but a seperate people who spoke a separate language). NOte that Grandmaster himself initially posted this very evidence in a discussion with the Armenians, using it to show that Armenians did not control the region, and now he refuses to acknowledge the very same evidence:
Al-Muqaddasi wrote in 985:
В Армении говорят по-армянски, а в Арране по-аррански; когда они говорят по-персидски, то их можно понимать, а их персидский язык кое в чем напоминает хурасанский. [27]
In Armenia they speak Armenian, and in Arran Arranian; when they speak Persian, they could be understood, and their Persian somewhat resembles Khorasani.
Ibn-Hawqal wrote in 978:
Что касается до языка жителей Адербейджана и большинства жителей Армении, то это персидский и арабский, но мало кто говорит по-арабски, а, кроме того, говорящие по-персидски не понимают по-арабски. Чисто по-арабски говорят купцы, владельцы поместий, а для многих групп населения в окраинах Армении и прилежащих стран существуют другие языки, как армянский — для жителей Дабиля и области его, а жители Берда'а говорят по-аррански. [28]
Too long to translate, the relevant line is: people of Barda speak Arranian.
Al-Istakhri wrote in 930:
Язык в Адербейджане, Армении и Арране персидский и арабский, исключая области города Дабиля: вокруг него говорят по-армянски: в стране Берда'а язык арранский. [29]
In Aderbeijan, Armenia and Arran they speak Persian and Arabic, except for the area around the city of Dabil: they speak Armenian around that city, and in the country of Barda people speak Arranian.
From the Western scholar Swietochowski:
The Turkic speakering Muslims of Russian held Azerbaijan, commonly known as Shirvanis and sometimes by the medieval name of Arranis... (page 10, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition)
Now please, ask Grandmaster for his sources and ask him to support his claims. Hajji Piruz 00:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
But what does that have to do with me? This is what is confusing me... Anyway, now that this whole thing has been cleared up, can we focus on the main issues now? I will contact you via e-mail if I am busy. Thanks. Hajji Piruz 00:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Piruz, here we see again how you mix up ancient Caucasian Albanians with modern day Azerbaijanis. The Arranians mentioned by Arab chronicles were Caucasian Albanians. See the article about Arran from encyclopedia Iranica:
Early Arran seems to have displayed the famed linguistic complexity of the Caucasus as a whole. Strabo 9.4, cites Theophanes of Mytilene that Albania had at least 26 different languages or dialects, and the distinctive Albanian speech persisted into early Islamic times, since Armenian and Islamic sources alike stigmatize the tongue as cacophonous and barbarous, with Estakhri, p. 192, Ebn Hawqal, p. 349, tr. Kramers-Wiet, p. 342, and Moqaddasi, p. 378, recording that al-Ranya was still spoken in the capital Barda’a or Bardaa in their time (4th/10th century). [30]
Bosworth mentions all 3 sources quoted by you and says that they speak about ancient Albanians. Now Tadeusz Swietochowski writes:
The Turkic-speaking Muslims of Russian-held Azerbaijan, commonly known as Shirvanis and sometimes even by the medieval name Arranis, differed from their ethnic siblings south of the Turkmanchai border in one essential respect: a large proportion belonged to the Sunni branch of Islam.
Albanians were not Turkic-speaking, so we are talking about Azerbaijanis, whose only difference from their ethnic siblings in the south was that there were many Sunnis among them. Shirvani/Arrani/Nakhichevani/Tabrizi, etc was only the regional denomination of Turkic people, i.e. Azeris. Such confusion in terms does not justify edits you make to a number of articles. We should distinguish between ancient people and more recent Turkic-speakers, who despite being descendants of Albanians were still a distinct people with a different language. Grandmaster 06:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Question, would you have closed the Kiev/Kyiv RM on the 16th if you had seen the schedule showing that it was going to be open at least until the 21st? Secondly, there are two conflicting policies, common english usage and a specified policy, to use Ukrainian National system. Since I have been moderating this RM it is upsetting to me that it was closed before I had a chance to summarize the various viewpoints and attempt to reach a consensus. You realize I hope that closing it early invalidates the RM? 199.125.109.35 02:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
My point is that by not announcing the RM we were not learning information that people like that had to offer. When the RM was finally announced on the 14th it was closed less than 48 hrs later, before I had had a chance to review the discussion and make suggestions, along with other more thoughtful editors. The reason I say it invalidates the process was proved by the fact that additional information was added. Here is what I do not wish to do. One, reopen a brand new RM, two, take this to ANI. Therefore I am asking that the RM be held open for four more days, until the 21st. I think that is enough to bring this to a closure. The idea of starting and stopping and starting and stopping and starting and stopping an RM is not good, but it is probably the best choice available. 199.125.109.35 04:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello El C. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue that you may be involved with. The discussion can be found under the topic WP:AN#Kiev/Kyiv RM. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and " no personal attack" policies. Thank you. |
199.125.109.35 01:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we may have been doing reverts at the same time just now. I hope I did not cause a mix up in the process. Kwork 17:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm a relatively new vandal fighter. I see that you do a huge amount of reverting vandalism. What I don't see is that you issue warnings to the talk pages of the people doing vandals. Nor do I see that you issue reports of vandalism to WP:AIV. Is there a reason for these omissions? You've been around longer than I so I figure there must be a reason. Sbowers3 17:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Please note: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Fucking%2C_Austria&diff=158772811&oldid=157754248 -- Otheus 18:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer on mentorship but the Armenia-Azerbaijan Arbcomm is too complicated and I have a general positive relationship with both sides. On a similar issue, I believe user Tajik has written many positive articles for Wikipedia. I would much prefer though to do whatever I am capable of in getting this generally positive contributor [33] unbanned and I will be serious/hard/harsh on him to make sure that he complies with all Wiki guidelines. If there is anything I can do, please let me know. -- alidoostzadeh 02:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you remember where you got Image:Lord Peel arrives.jpg from? Lupo 09:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey El C, long time no talk. How have you been? I have an issue with two users who seem to not want to accept any of the points, which are cited, that I am bringing up in a article for deletion page. Please look here [34] the two users I am referring to are leoboudv and thanatosimii. It seems that they ignore what I post, and the sources I provide, instead they keep saying, basically the same things to me. Please take a look and thanks in advance for your help.-- Moosh88 02:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Hajji Piruz is back after a few days of absence, and these are his first edits: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] As you can see, first thing he did was reverting a number of pages where his edits had no consensus. Once again, he restored "Etymology" section to the main article about Azerbaijan, which was removed by Ali Doostzadeh in accordance with the agreement we had with you that this issue would be discussed only in 1 article, dedicated to the topic, i.e. History of the name Azerbaijan. What do you think would be the best thing to do in this situation? -- Grandmaster 05:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
May I remind you that initially the section in Azerbaijan article was removed by User:Ali doostzadeh? This IP is his, [43] and so is his consequent edit. [44] I just rvd to Ali, because your edits have no consensus and are controversial. Moreover, you spam the same quotes across multiple articles in violation of our agreement. Grandmaster 06:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Same with Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan) and Iran-Azerbaijan relations: [45] [46] Your edits were removed by Ali, and you reverted him back. I don't understand why you are blaming me when your edits have no consensus on any of the articles you keep on reverting? Grandmaster 06:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You brought tears to my eyes. :) Jeeny 02:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Thank you for correcting it. I read through the article ( WP:SUBST) but have one question; you said it "created havoc". What did it actually do? - Rjd0060 03:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete deeceevoice's user page? I don't think it's fair the way that people are ganging up on her. I think he essay made valid points about wikipdeia. Is this really the kind of place where criticism is censored? It was not a personal attack it was criticism. I may have been wrong, I don't know the facts-- But, it really looks like people are trying to hide and delete criticism. That is not a good precedent to set. futurebird 14:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I heard you were having a tough time so I thought I would be friendly and drop off some extra energy for you. Enjoy! ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
On your edits to Notable people section in Trichy, if you had a chance to look at the history, you would see I recently curtailed the section and cleaned it. But an Anon undid it. So, I am reverting back to my edits, a couple of days ago. Feel free to chime in. - RC 13:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
...on my userpage. It's kinda funny though. Mr. or Ms. Satanic ugly ashkenazi Jewface could not possibly have known that two days ago my brother turned me on to this. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 14:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Heya El C, long time no speak. This is a little random, but I saw a revision of WP:AN where you were baited by another user. It was over a year ago, but I just wanted to say: you are a good admin, and a great editor, with a totally quirky sense of humour that I personally think it fantastic. Stick with it dude. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For seeing things as they are, and doing what any reasonable person would do. Keep up the good work, because certain type of people are going to keep pushing their rather disturbing points of view here. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC) |
I would like Dyskolos's talk page to be unprotected, so I can post that they were a good editor and that they will be missed, and that they were acting in good faith and their block was not due to trying to push a POV nor due to disruption, but just because they were using a proxy. A.Z. 04:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments regarding the blank, blank and blankety blank block that was given me over 2RR (yup, 2RR, and I thought I was reverting an edit-warrior, so I thought I was even exempt from 3RR). Anyways, keep up the good work. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Ready to swab the deck! | |
Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman Talk 03:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for the pic of the C-man on my talk page. Illustrations of Lovecraft characters are so much better than even on most of the Arkham jackets, not to mention the dreadful renderings on the Beagle Books (IIRC) of the '70s.
I think it was deCamp who described many of Lovecraft's monsters as resembling an Italian fish dinner. I'm not getting near Cthulhu armed only with bottles of olive oil and vinegar, if you don't mind. Cheers, Cecropia 14:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
After you mentioned The Call of ... I looked at the reviews on amazon and ordered it, and I'm now waiting...
HPL movies have been almost uniformly bad, with an occasional effort with some redeemable features, such as the dreadfully named "Die Monster Die" (IIRC) which was a passable (and unreferenced) version of The Colour Out of Space. But I'm looking forward to my "Calling." -- Cecropia 23:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. Let's cool down. When I first began editing here, I found my edits to Tove Jensen rejected by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson because they were original research. Fair enough. I didn't understand the rules, but now I do, and I'm still learning. I doubt if there's anyone who has a full grasp of all the rules and guidelines. That's a good thing, because WP is an organic entity with fluid boundaries. In the current situation, having kept a close eye on User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson, because I was seriously worried about his objectivity, and his style of admin, I messaged him on his talk page to express my concerns. This was intended to be helpful and to indicate that to ordinary editors such as myself that his style was confrontational rather than constructive. His response was to blank already uploaded images on my user page, without explanation. This is not constructive, in my view, it's revenge. As a result, I remain to be convinced that User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson is psychologically fit to remain as an admin on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, Jeffrey has many good qualities, but in my considered opinion they are outweighed by his apparent God-complex tempered with his intolerance and tendency to snipe. Just my POV, and I'm fairly new, but just look at my edit record. I want WP to be informative and entertaining, without being trivial. -- Rodhullandemu ( talk - contribs) 04:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the "provided that" that comes with this and wanted to use it. What is the "provided that" I should aim to comply with? Milto LOL pia 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
JPOV edit. [48] previous edit. [49] i revert it only previous edit. i did not edit by myself. i revert from old edit. this change [50] lack of "fact" JPOV edit without consensus. so, I remove it this JPOV edit. also, according to Japanese invasions of Korea, japanese samurai casualties(killed -death rate by korean soldier-) much more. so, this edit [51] is not based "fact". remove or modify is better. Replayamong23 10:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[54] ? Viridae Talk 12:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was:
In your edit summary, you say: "(yes, well, in case you didn't notice, it was linked to the automaker, and you did not revert me, you removed the link altogether)"
I'm guessing that you didn't notice this, where I removed the link added by the anon (which not only lead to Mazda, the car company, but was unnecessary as the previous sentence already had a link to Ahura Mazda).
After that, you continued with this change, which as I'd pointed out was unnecessary per the previous edit's reasoning.
As you'll notice, I did revert you, because I undid the changes you had made and returned to the previous version- that being, the version with no link on "Mazda" whatsoever.-- C.Logan 09:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Were there any remaining doubt, follow the diffs: [55] Proabivouac 09:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Cabinda is not universally recognised as part of Angola and it is therefore misleading to quote it as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franiel242 ( talk • contribs) 11:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Did you block that guy solely for his username or was it in part do to his SPA trolling? I feel he's at it again - Special:Contributions/MOASPN - he's throwing a certain project talk page off the topic with his drama-mongering. Milto LOL pia 19:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I should add that MOASPN is 'Musings of a Semi Private Nature' (per his user pages...) Privatemusings 23:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you can explain further what administrative power is being exercised by blanking someone's user page? Thank you for you patience in explaining. Basejumper2 19:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I also do. The vandelism warning was for blanking the rest of the user page. My understanding is that this is not an administrative priviledge any more than it is a priviledge of anybody else. If I am incorrect, correct me. Also, point me to the mildest vandelsim tag that can be used with a person who has been a member for years. Thank you. Basejumper2 19:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi El_C, please see this [56] and this [57] by User Yidisheryid ( talk · contribs) and my responses at User talk:Basejumper2#Aish Hatorah and User talk:Lookzar42#Reminder what puppets & co really evoke, and finally my last at User talk:IZAK#Sockpuppet?: "NOTE: I must now suspect that perhaps User Yidisheryid ( talk · contribs) is involved as a possible suspect since he has also recently been blocked for sockpuppeteering, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yidisheryid, and of all things he finds it worthy to leave messages of "comfort" to both User:Basejumper2 [58] and to self-admitted sockpuppet User:Lookzar42 [59]. So much for his antics. IZAK 13:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)" Maybe a Wikipedia:Checkuser of all three, User:Yidisheryid, User:Basejumper2 and User:Lookzar42 would be helpful and in order. Thanks a lot, IZAK 13:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're the same Moroccan faggot (retard) that edits as FayssalF? Well, I am saddened that you have surfaced from what should have been a deadly, bloody accident. I am further annoyed by your plastering of Che's image, poor Che..he would have shot you dead long ago. I am, however, rather amused by your flaunting of the revolutionary spirit, as I am certain you haven't an iota of it in you. We will find out whether or not you do, however, when we visit you in the near future (yes, we know who you are and how you look). You will undoubtedly tremble with fright! I hope your blind and ignorant admin tools do not fail you then but I know that they will. Until then, on with your anti-intellectualism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.219.208 ( talk) 00:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
3 months are enough. But no worries, she became notorious and many admins are blocking on the spot. It is just dynamic but we can live w/ that. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The submission did not give any third party reliable sources, and only provided the commission's own website. AFC has the rule that any submission without a reliable source can't be accepted. If you'd like to find some news articles about the organization, and you're sure of its notability, feel free to create it. Ariel ♥ Gold 10:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
As I told CambridgeBayWeather in the email that has not been addressed, it shall be my policy to never again contribute to Wikipedia. I shall only use my account to remove my statements from talk pages - such as the offending statement associated with the blocking of my account.
Wikipedia has lost this editor FOR EVER.
William R. Buckley —Preceding unsigned comment added by William R. Buckley ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I looked at this image. The issue was just that it didn't name the article where the rationale is supposed to apply ( WP:NFCC#10c). I fixed that. If you want, you can unprotect it, since that is the only issue I see with the rationale. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 01:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
A discussion involving you has been going on at the help desk. link. Just to let you know. Woodym555 17:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I was advised via the Help Desk to attempt to contact you again. Yesterday you used Bots to remove all posts I had made apparently without looking at the content. The information regarding Thailand's purchase and use of Hawk IIIs and Thailand use of the Corsair V93S model (an export model of the O3U) posted to the article is factual yet you chose to wipe all of it out. Yet, the article's claim that China used the Hawk III and the suggestion that only China used the Hawk III remains. You claimed there were products for sale on the website I had linked photos from. What products? Meanwhile you continue to allow blatantly commercial sites such as War Bird Alley (sells merchandise, advertising, etc.), Motor Books (sells aviation books among others) and Temora Aviation Museum (sells everything from jewelry to stuffed animals) to continue to link to some of the articles where you deleted my posts. Temora Aviation Museum actually has their own article. That behavior suggests a double standard is at play here. While I would like to make additions to articles that provide factual information and enhance Wikipedia, it appears anything I post will be automatically deleted. NYerkes 02:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I have calmed down and will answer your questions. First however I want to make a comment. While you may not understand this, reverting an article to eliminate verifiable factual text is insulting to a user. As stated in the Wikipedia help page, "It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor. If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted."
I could understand eliminating links, even more so now that a thoughtful person took the time to write asking me to try and work out the issues and explaining how Wikipedia works. The wholesale elimination of verifiable factual text without as much as a comment why as stated is as good as a slap in the face. It may be unjustified but I got angry. It is telling me and anyone else you do this that our participation is not wanted. I didn't like it and I doubt anyone else would. In one instance the revert now creates a factual inaccuracy.
In answer to your question, I own the photos and thousands more related to aviation and other points of interest in Thailand. I live here. I own a business here. I have a work permit here that allows me among other things to take photographs and shoot video nationwide. I have spent a substantial amount of time doing research into aviation (a hobby) and my commercial endeavors. I own over 1000 generic domains. Like the one in question most have natural type in traffic whether or not there is a developed website or not. I am also reasonably competent at SEO. My other developed domains which are not linked to Wikipedia are doing just fine without it. Of the domains I own, some of my domains are undeveloped, some are commercially developed others like the domain in question are developed but not commercially. The only reason I linked that domain is that the photos of those aircraft do not presently exist on Wikipedia and I do not want to give up my copyright by offering to share them with Wikipedia users. The thoughtful person who wrote me suggested licensing them under the commons license. After reviewing policy, for reasons I don't understand, Wikipedia appears to require a copyright owner to allow commercial use of copyrighted visual material if it is to be shared with Wikipedia users. I have no problem whatever with people reusing the information I add to article for any purpose. I am happy to provide it. In the future I simply won't add photographs when I don't want to release the copyright.
Meanwhile, after adding useful information about a couple of aircraft and their usage by Thailand in the French-Thai war I find the material removed and no one can assure me you won't do another wholesale deletion of legitimate material. You did not even offer that assurance when I first posted to your talk page. After reviewing your reverts and you do a lot of them I must say that nearly all I have seen protect Wikipedia particularly from vandalism. You are to be commended for that. However, in the future, please don't insult new editors by deleting copy even if they have made errors in their posts. If there was one error that must be deleted do that and leave the rest intact. Talk about what needs to be fixed in the remainder if anything.
Also, the links I mentioned to you remain. Personally I find two of them useful though they probably shouldn't be linked if the rules are to be equally enforced. One site however is pure unadulterated advertising including a copy of their Ebay articles for sale. There is no free information whatever on that site. Is there any reason they remain? Thanks NYerkes 11:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I just want to say thank you for fixing up the vandalism on my user page today :) is much appreciated Floorwalker 06:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I was surprised to see both Neil and yourself baiting each other in that thread, hence my "what the fuck". The "stop this" comment was directed at both of you. It wasn't related to the thread and my response it wasn't directed at only you it was directed at both of you. You appear to have mistaken my comments as directed at you only in support of Neil which wasn't the case. Viridae Talk 09:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that mate - you're right! Gormenghastly 11:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the changes to my talk page, and blocking the user. But I have a request, also -- could you take a look at this for me? It seems there's a whole mess of socks adding unsourced material to various articles, including (especially) that one. Because of the username similarity, it seems obvious enough to simply tell an admin, rather than filing a sock report. There are some other socks as well, I think -- I'll see if I can root them out. Gscshoyru 13:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey El C. I've been trying to read up on a lot in the last hour or two; I see that you disagree with my block of Jeeny, correct? Do you want to discuss some alternate solutions to this issue either here or via email? I'm open to suggestions about better ways to deal with the dispute. Picaroon (t) 20:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I have just been contacted by an editor of the German Wikipedia who is translating the English Uranus article, and she would like to know if we would be kind enough to upload our remaining images onto the Wikimedia commons. Problem is, I have no idea how to upload an image onto the Wikimedia commons, so I'm not sure what to do. Could you point me in the right direction? Thanks. Serendipod ous 12:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page
Legalism (Chinese philosophy) worked, and it has been
reverted or removed. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to
our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
wj32
t/
c
07:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Please ignore the previous warning :) -- wj32 t/ c 07:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I made a good faith edit on the page "Theory" which you reverted. I was wondering why. Any information would be appreciated. -- Thanks, AikBkj 15:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I will make my edits in smaller chunks explaining each as I go. In the first edit, I eliminated the word misguided which was used to describe the common usage of the term, theory. A common usage of a term is a legitimate usage while misguided is a pejorative judgement of that usage. Thanks, AikBkj 15:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not a registered contributor. I had added external links to the Nyaya page, why were they removed ? Whats wrong with putting up multiple sources of information? Google search on Nyaya does not yield sufficiently good results...
Somebody is continuously trying to add un-encyclopedic material to the Jammu and Kashmir article. See [61]. I have told the user to create a separate article on Human rights in Kashmir and not to create a sub-section on the topic as it does not meet Wikiproject Indian States guidelines. But he/she is not listening. Can you please help. Thanks -- Lokantha 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my user page. I really don't understand the satisfaction these people get. Illinois2011 18:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry to let you down. You guys have all been nice to me. - Jehochman Talk 19:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope this was meant in jest. It's not entirely obvious that it was. Raymond Arritt 02:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
ok.. sorryy.. Thank you for your kind reply. Will not do it again. Bharathwaaj 08:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Since when?
I normally wouldn't dream of touching another editor's talk page, but Jayjg has been absent for three months and people keep leaving him messages. I simply blanked it to draw attention to the fact that he's apparently quit the project, so that people stop wasting their time trying to get input from him. Gatoclass 11:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see, you think you have a mandate to dictate to me what I can and cannot do on Wikipedia on the basis of what is "obvious" and "common sense". And you have the hide to call me "presumptuous"? Thanks for the laugh. Gatoclass 12:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's one. To El C: your edit summary was angry, I wish you'd started out by assuming good intentions on Gatoclass' part, because I'm sure they were. To Gatoclass: I don't understand why it was necessary to blank the page, considering that the wikibreak notice at the top looks pretty conspicuous to me. Also, Jayjg's "E-mail this user" feature is active still, did you try e-mailing him to ask if he wanted it blanked? To both of you: I think you both meant well, and you really don't have any reason to be squaring up to one another like two alpha baboons. Now please collaborate nicely in posting an NPA template on me for calling you names. Bishonen | talk 12:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC).
Re [62]: You asked for proof. I provided proof in the form of a government web site, in both English and Portuguese. The article now has proper and authoritative citations for Portugal's official name in both English and Portuguese. Do what you want with other articles (which I highly question but won't involve myself in, for now at least), but don't change the wording on Portugal, as it is correct. Why you would question the accuracy of a government's own web site about its country's official name I cannot fathom. — Nricardo 14:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Future perfect will know. El_C 23:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Right, the r stand for republic! Thanks, I'm gonna create those two shortcuts. El_C 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
-- nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 02:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Wallowing in my RfA: This time it's personal... | |
My sincere thanks for your support in
my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. Doubtless it was an error to put one of the
government-bred race of pigmen in any position of authority, but I hope your confidence in me proves justified.
Even a man pure of heart and who says his prayers at night can become a were-boar when the moon is full and sweet. Fortunately, I'm neither a were-pig nor pure of heart so this doesn't appear to be an imminent danger to Wikipedia for the moment. Fortunate as well because were-pig hooves are hell on keyboards and none too dexterous with computer mice. If ever I should offend, act uncivil, misstep, overstep, annoy, violate policy, or attempt to topple the fascist leadership of Wikipedia, please let me know so I can improve my behaviour and/or my aim.
I am not an animal; I am an admin. And, of course, if there is any way in which I can help you on Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to ask me. Despite my japes, I am indeed dedicated to protecting and serving Wikipedia to the best of my foppish and impudent abilities. I will strive to be an admirable admin, shiny and cool, reasonable and beatific.
Pigman
what?/
trail
05:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
|
That doesn't look Kosher! El_C 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your tips on the use of internal links etc! Wschaap —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wschaap ( talk • contribs) 09:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for supporting my successful rfa which closed with 58 supports. If i am honest i am rather humbled by the unanimous support and i hope to live up to everyones expectations. If you ever need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks again. Woodym555 15:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wonderingif I might ask for a procedural question. In the ArbCom Enforcement page, a complaint was filed against Dreamguy for uncivility and edit-warring. As well, I was concerned that he was edting under a few different anonymous IP addresses. When asked about the alternate IP's, DG said it wasn't important. Admitedly, my contribution was loooong, to illustrate my point (and boy, do I wish I could replace it with a more succinct argument). Admin Jehochman noted as much, and suggested I post to SSP and RFCU, which I did. Because I had posted notices of the SSP and the ArbCom Enforcement complaint (which another user had failed to do), Jehochman reported me to AN/I, thinking I was picking on DG for "sport." In the unsuing AN/I, I was asked to present evidence of edit-warring, which I did to the satisfaction of Jehochman. As well, the SSP report indicated that DG was using an anonymous IP to edit-war in Jack the Ripper article, and supporting those edits, violating 3RR. Another admin, Gnangarra, noted the similarities between the edits, and blocked DreamGuy. In your response in the ArbCom enforcement, you asked for "the organization? The coherence? The intelligibility?" Were you looking for more than the links to the appropriate conversations in AN/I and SSP? I don't mind providing the infor provided in the linked discussions, but I wasn't sure what precisely you were asking for. Let me know, and I will act on it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Dearest El C,
Thank you for your participation in
my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your support is very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to
The_undertow and
Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.
Dear El C,
Responding to his bad block of my IP, Jehochman 1) accuses me of being you
[64] 2) removes "unwanted conversation” about his block
[65] 3) and protects his talk page against "trolling"
[66].
24.19.33.82
07:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Please be aware of this inquiry, [67] which Jehochman blanked earlier. [68] 24.19.33.82 03:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdenting)
The thread was deleted and I thought that all ANI threads were to be archived (didn't know that what the user was trying to do was to deny recognition...that one's on me). I reverted to copy the massive thread, archived it in it's proper place and then redeleted it. If it looks "bizarre" it was not my intention, just trying to archive. Hope that clears up the "bizarreness". Take Care... NeutralHomer T: C 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're on top of the latest edits. Let me know if you need any help. Oh -- and I don't know anything about Biblegateway. Was he giving links to verses? Tim 18:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello El C. I've tried over and over, to get El Jigue to stop gossiping on the Cuban related articles. Just moments ago at the Cuba page, I slightly lost my patients with him. Perhaps there's a slight 'language barrier' involved with EJ's inability to comply (maybe he doesn't quite understand what I'm telling him). Could we get somebody who speaks Spanish to talk with him? Maybe then he'll understand. GoodDay 21:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I remember you as a helpful admin. We have a User:Tawhid Jihad who, apart from meeting Wikipedia's requirements for inappropriate user names (it's a play on an Islamist terrorist organization) also engages in off-topic and offensive discussions over at the Bosnia and Herzegovina article. Just some examples here, here, here and here. Could you block this guy or how would one go about getting it done? Cheers Osli73 09:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[69] Good stuff, even if it is sort of unorthodox. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 10:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I've received an appeal to semi-protect the article David Livingstone. I see you've reverted vandalism there a couple times recently. What are your thoughts? I see that IP vandalism is north of 25% of recent edits, but there was also a good IP edit recently and the overall volume appears to be at the annoying but manageable level. GRBerry ( talk) 14:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting Jammu and Kashmir. Apparently, the same user have been vandalizing Indophobia and Anti-Pakistani sentiment. Please take appropriate action. -- AmJay ( talk) 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
being deleted. Miranda 06:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi El C, Can please re-examine your warning for my edit warring on Khurshidbanu Natavan. Where a picture was being used as a source. All I did was just back and forth editing and discussion all aimed at NPOV-ing the article
My first edit was to ask for a rewrite [70]
I removed the bogus source(image)and added couple of fact tags [71]
I replaced just the bogus source with a fact tag [72]
My first revert [73]
My second and last revert [75]
I tried to rewrite it myself and moved the so-called source to the external links [77]
I give up and add POV and fact tags to the article
The article is still POV, but I remove the tag and the article from my watchlist.
Now do you think I edit warred? or tried and failed to bring balance and neutrality to the article. Ehud Leser, Grandmaster, Atabek and Parishan all edit warred, tried and succeeded in include the unverifiable image as a source. I really appreciate if you could re-examine your decision to warn me for edit warring and post your reply here Thanks. VartanM ( talk) 21:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
How is this not harassment and wikistalking? Do you still think using unverifiable images as a source is neutral? VartanM ( talk) 22:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at this. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 22:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
For this. The thought is much appreciated. Remember, though, you had one way of preventing this and I had several, although I didn't realize the mistake at the time. Regards, Durova Charge! 01:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Wait, you "own copyright on the report Giano II posted" — I'm asking you to release it. What's going on? El_C 03:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Firstly Persia is not archaic, it was used solely as Iran’s official name until 1935, we still have people living from that era!
Secondly, as I have displayed the reference, Iran and Persia can officially be used interchangeably. Please search for Prof. Ehsan Yarshater and his work on this matter.
But most importantly is that I as an Iranian-American always call myself Persian, all Iranians call themselves Persian, we have the Persian Gulf, Persian Rugs, Persian cuisines, Persian cats and many more present usages of Persia that undoubtedly reflect the Iranian people and culture.
As a summery, Iran is Persia solely until 1935, interchangeably since 1935, and commonly used in many vocabulary in Present English. Therefore, it is rational to place an indication of this undisputable connection of words as the name of the article at hand.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argooya ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Jeeny (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry, I felt like a doof right after I made it--I didn't see that there was a list AFTER the references section. Normally, that's the last part of the page. When I saw it I tried to go back and edit, but it had already been changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.22.77 ( talk) 04:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you fully protect page Marshal of the Soviet Union please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staygyro ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
[81] Did I neglect an e-mail? If so, it was unintentional. I've been swamped for a week. Very hard to keep on top of everything. Durova Charge! 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
So then I repeated it (refractored text enclosed) |
---|
Thank you For this. The thought is much appreciated. Remember, though, you had one way of preventing this and I had several, although I didn't realize the mistake at the time. Regards, Durova Charge! 01:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Wait, you "own copyright on the report Giano II posted" — I'm asking you to release it. What's going on? El_C 03:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
|
So, now there is no reason for you not to respond, for better or worse. Regards, El_C 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
In light of today's events [84] which I have just now learned about, I will not press on the matter further. El_C 23:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The fractal orange image thing covers the options at the bottom to click on so I can see your contribs etc. If I try and get at them from there, I just get the pic. Could you possibly move it up a bit? Maybe it's just when viewed by firefox, which some people, like me, use? Merkinsmum ( talk) 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've got a problem with a couple of editors cooperating/coordinating their edits which I feel really amounts to ganging up. See below:
==cooperate on the Bosnian Genocide article==
That is what we should do, not revert each other's versions. The newest version (mine) is perfectly fine, although the intro could be better rephrased. So work with me on protecting my version (which practically includes your version as well). Ancient Land of Bosoni ( talk) 22:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC) [85]
Would this be tantamount to breaking any WP rules of etiquette? Osli73 ( talk) 16:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I have to file a complaint against DreamGuy in ArbCom Enforcement, of personal attacks and incivility. As you took issue with the method by which I introduced evidence last time, might I ask for your guidance in filing it correctly? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
As the blocking admin, I draw your attention to [87] and I seek your acquiescence in the edit proposed. You may also wish to comment here, if you choose: [88] Alice.S 10:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit baffled by your link to [91] as a "related article" was that a whoopsy?
OK,you asked for it: Although User:Perspicacite has been warned many times before (eg: [92], [93]) about claiming ownership of articles and subsequently reverting editors without examining the damage he is causing to our texts, he continues to refuse to engage in dialogue on his own talk page.
Instead, he just removes without adequate and appropriate reply (eg: [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99]) or comment (apart from mendacious edit summaries) relevant questions, which is why I am asking other editors here if there are any reasonable justifications for continually reverting (eg: [100] and [101] and [102] and [103] and [104]) to versions of our article which have errors such as:
? Alice.S 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Because, with the many irrational reverts it has become quite difficult to maintain our Rhodesia article in an error-free state, I have begun to maintain a fork in my user space: User:Alice.S/Rhodesia.
You and any other editor are very welcome to edit that fork (with the sole exception that all changes to the fork must be made by editing the forked version and not by using revert or undo tools or substituting the entire fork). The current forked version, at the time of making this comment is this, and I intend to substitute this better version for Perspicacite alias Jose João's version during the next few hours - obviously I will update it with any appropriate edits made there (and/or to the main article) in the meanwhile. Alice.S 10:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. Since there was no effective self rule before 1923, I can not understand why P wises to continually revert to "Southern Rhodesians ruled themselves until 1923"
I sincerely believe that the version I wish to introduce again:
"Southern Rhodesians ruled themselves after self-government began in October 1923 under the first Premier, Charles Patrick John Coghlan."
is more accurate. Please note the distinction between "until" and "after".
Changing "[[Central Intelligence Organization]] (spelled incorrectly with a z according to our article and that organisation) and other trivial changes, are just mentioned for the sake of completeness and to emphasise that P is reverting because of the editor and NOT the content. I regard this as a content dispute, he regards this as a war to get an "enemy" banned. Alice.S 14:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
While I applaud your closing of the MFD page on RFC/U and the suggestion that it should be improved, it appears that little improvement is forthcoming. What is your opinion on this matter? >Radiant< 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you happen to see this older message of mine to UC, also on the Proposed Decisions talk? Bishonen | talk 10:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC).
Please have a look at this. There is another edit war between me and him. Can you intervene and protect the page? -- Jai Dixit ( talk) 01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
HEY THANKS EL_C FOR BEING FAIR AND NEUTRAL ON THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR ISSUE LETS HOPE NO INDIAN CHANGES AT AGAIN VIVA LA REVOLUTION —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.100.224 ( talk) 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem at all. Actually, I wrote most of the article a while ago (early 2007?) and, since no one really gave me much feedback, I put it on the back burner and sort of forgot about it. Glad that you are taking interest, and I hope we can improve the article. Didn't realize that on some other Kashmir-related pages (as evident from the posts above) major edit-wars were in progress. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I just don't appreciate my comments being deleted, thanks. Regardless, he's all yours. The Rambling Man 11:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
For laughing in the face of the United States Government, which I don't encourage but snicker at myself, I award you a ugly, generic, meaningless heart of a purple tent. — Moe ε 12:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: my mail earlier today. After telling Bill what was going on it seems that I may have "fingered" the wrong person. See User talk:BillCJ under "Sorry Bill...". As I noted there, the block and "resulting" e-mail to me may have been coincidental. Still a problem user, just a different problem user! Maury 17:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I didn't. Why did you revert those page moves, and change the links to point to irrelevant articles? - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 21:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Your welcome! I'll make a short list now because I can't remember off the top of my head that were moved twice (it was only like 3-4 pages). Many of the moves were reversing the names alphabetically, which while I would normally agree with, the move log showed on some of them there was a prefered revision after a discussion, so moving without discussion, after a discussion, was counter-productive. There was a couple I agreed with but they didn't have anything to do with the international relations articles. Although there the article that was named "Country A-Country B Friendship" that he properly moved, that was good, other than that the moves were rather improper without discussion. I must say though, these articles are really unmatched (i.e some use "American" "U.S." or "United States" in the title) and that probably is my biggest concern with these articles. — Moe ε 06:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
This had me a bit confused until I figured out what's going on. Thanks for reverting. — Alex( U| C| E) 07:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For not letting inane POV pushed criticisms get in the way of doing your job, and for apparently being one of few who seems to be truly neutral around here Coldmachine Talk 13:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC) |
Should this be the object of an RFC? I am going to poll other editors I really respect, but thought you should know. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it may be ipremature - or irrelevant. Things have changed around here and I may be missing something myself, but I though RFC's were a very informal and generl way to seek more general attention on any issue. In this case, I think there are a few editors who fundamentally want to get rid of NOR, but in the specific edit above I thin one editor is severly misrepresenting what a policy is and how disputes over policy should be handled ... these are questions that I think more experienced editors would have a lot to say about, and I was wondering if there was a way to attract the attention of more experienced editors to see if they wanted to respond to this editor's comment. Am I misunderstanding RFC? I ask sincerely - there is a lot that has happened at WP over the past two years that I do not understand (largely because life has demanded more of my attention). I was merely looking for a way to open up discussion to a wider audience, not to make a complaint against personal conduct. Is that not possible? Also, I thought given your own experience and commitment to WP you personally might have a comment in response to this editor's claims, in this specific instiance about "policy" in general, and in other recent edits to the NOR page, about NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I completely understand what Wikipedia is and isn't and how fickle its guardians are. The links added were to a respected source which offers the latest news on many scientific topics - other links from Wikipedia show that the people that follow existing links from Wikipedia to the articles in Null-Hypothesis tend to read them fully. I understand that to the American mindset the British way of allowing humour to creep in to serious matters does not sit well but to many Wiki readers it does. Null-Hypothesis has many highly qualified authors writing on subjects they have PhDs in - to arbitrarily reject them is somewhat obtuse. Please reconsider and reinstate the information or provide detailed and non-general reasons for Nazi-esque policing of Wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.190.50 ( talk) 10:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Because you'd delete them? There does seem to be a recurring pattern here of you deleting links, doesn't there? Perhaps if you read and researched, before making edits we could avoid your usual defacing of wikipedia, and your malicious, and erroneous comments? Perhaps in future you should stick to editing what you know, and leave all else well alone, either that or leave wikipedia to those willing to edit it professionally, and courteously? Further malicious edits will be reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.63.23 ( talk) 12:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[1] obviously trying to evade -- an announcing it, can you beat that? ← BenB4 01:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You have closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chata-hradna some time ago, but the article remains undeleted. Just a friendly reminder: Would you mind deleting that article when you have time? Cheers. Tankred 00:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Please check your email. Thanks.... NeutralHomer T: C 03:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
At times I drop in on this article's talk page, to see what's being discussed (concerning improvements). In doing so, I've noticed 'El Jigue' has made the talk-page his 'gossip colunm' (Fidel's possible death & Raul's possible retirement plans). Isn't EJ pushing the ignore all rules too far? GoodDay 19:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who added the "Manufacturers" section, but on things which are mainly used by universities, it is nice to know where to look for further information and tools
The only problem with that section is keeping it from being constantly vandalized, so unless theres a way to restrict edits to authorized users, it might be best to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admartch ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Howdy, just replied to your email. Navou banter 19:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Based on the contribution period, articles concentrated on, and behavior of removing talk when he is through with it, I believe that User:Manutdglory is a sock-puppet of User:Englandfan7, who was banned indefinitely after sock-puppeting with User:Iwualum05. I'm letting you know as you have dealt with this user before. Thanks! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ingushetia is undoing the same section after being warned.
Ingushetia's Revision
Does this call for any action?
--
DogGunn
07:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It could very well be in my interest, but not writing an edit summary in talk is no excuse to revert. You cannot revert a page simply because they did not fill out something on Talk or write an edit summary. No problem with the version has been stated. There is no point in making trouble with something that does not need it. -- Shamir1 04:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you disagree with this change or was that just an oversight? -- tariqabjotu 04:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I did not revert anything to "months back". What is your problem? The "economic competitiveness" was there already. [2] I simply changed "competition" to "competitiveness" to reflect the survey and Wikipedia's summary. That is not reverting or "reintroducing", let alone to months back. -- Shamir1 04:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
user:Dirtydowntown is vandalising this article you have semi-protected.. OOps, meant to sign Quantpole 12:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Would you be so kind as to provide a third party opinion on a little dispute we have on talk of Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan)? We have a dispute as to whether sources support the statement that a certain region was a part of a larger one. Thanks in advance. -- Grandmaster 12:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I responded to the question you asked in this Arbitration enforcement notice board [3]. Please read it when you get the chance. I do not wish to dispute your decision regarding Arranis, but I believe my action to revert the name change made by User:Grandmaster from the original Arranis to Caucasian Albanians was legitimate since he never produced any consensus among the editors in that article for the move or any scholarly consensus for such an action. Dfitzgerald 16:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's good to be back. ^ demon [omg plz] 13:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: if you do unblock this fellow, subject to mentoring, I do think he should still be subject to revert limitation and probation (or whatever they're calling it these days) for a time-span of at least six months? Best, Moreschi Talk 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi El C, thanks for considering unblocking user:Andranikpasha. Just my opinion but it was kind of hastily done considering he is still a newbie and was proven to not be a sock of anyone. I think through this experience, he has already learned much and I, like other contributors, should be ready to help him learn more and guide him. Thanks again. - Fedayee 23:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, the parole has no time limitations, at least the arbcom decision says nothing about it and all users are placed under supervision indefinitely. -- Grandmaster 05:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
El C, please also note that your warning is the second one given to VartanM, he was previously warned by the admin. See [5] At the same time, yesterday 2 editors were placed on parole without any warning at all: [6] [7] It is kind of not fair that some editors get 2 warnings, and others none at all. Grandmaster 09:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I forgot another one: Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan). The section repeating the same info with minor variations is called Boundaries: [10] It is impossible to find an article that has any relation to Azerbaijan that does not contain speculations about the name. Grandmaster 12:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do, I have been mentoring him via email already. He promised to stay away from controversial articles. VartanM 03:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I simply mentioned the Armenian thing to show how absurd your accusations are, I was being sarcastic (not actually accusing you), and I'm glad that you now understand that. You arent trying to imply that Khosrow II and I are the same person, then what was this check user about: [13]
When you had initially asked for that checkuser, I was confused and couldnt understand why so I didnt even bother saying anything because I knew that no connection would come up, as I'm certainly not that user. So please, retract your words and from now on assume good faith as per the arbcom. Hajji Piruz 05:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting that edit on Virginia Tech massacre. I have no idea why 24.124.109.67 is so insistent on adding that separator into the article. \/\/AYCOOL27 talk 07:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure why you reverted this article back to some interum version (a brand new version that amalgamated several old versions and seems to ignore all reliable sources) and left the comment "looks a bit more stable presentation". Looks compared to what? There is ample evidence in Talk:Milky Way that this version is wrong in many ways. Are we to toss out all edits and to halt all editing (page lock) untill everyone agrees on the talk page? If so I would assume you should have reverted back to the GA version. I will wait for you to explain your comments befor i revert your edit (maybe there is something I missed). Halfblue 13:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with him being blocked. Dab is a blatant vandal. Look at the edit history of Aramaic history and read his reasons for vandalism under the Assyrian people talk page. Sharru Kinnu III 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
(copied from their IP talk page) I'm not particularly happy with this user's bias, but the lowercase "jews" usage dates back a while in the article (days at least), and doesn't seem to be something El Jigue added. I think you may have been too hasty on that point... Georgewilliamherbert 23:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It was unrelated to the lowercase "jew," which, I neither implied El Jigue authored (I didn't check) nor that he was aware of the modern, mostly-internet-age connotations behind this usage; the block was over his insinuation of racialism/ethnocentrism on my part. [17] Just because everyone is afraid to block El Jigue, doesn't mean there isn't a long record of personal attacks, bad faith, and disruptive provocations. El_C 02:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Dude, you have no idea what Internet Archive is. It is a non-profit organization that works with Project Gutenberg and other Open Source Content contributors. They have over 250,000 public domain scanned books online, besides Google Books it is the single largest book scanning project in the world. -- 71.191.36.194 03:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi El C. I noticed that you removed the protection tag from Leck mich im Arsch, but you didn't unprotect the article. What did you mean to do? Melsaran ( talk) 11:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Friend,Falun Gong a system of mind-body cultivation practice. And lays emphasis on cultivation of heart-nature on xinxing. Kindly go through the teachings, all of which are available online at http://www.falundafa.org and you can then judge for yourself. The most cruel forms of injustice are being committed against innocent people and their families. And the CCP has spread a lot of lies to justify this persecution. As they say all that is needed for the triumph of evil people is good men not doing anything. Kindly go through www.ninecommentaries.com am sure you will find the articles there tremendously insightful. Thankyou :) Dilip rajeev 11:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It's all my fault. I created this subpage for discussing the hot-button Kiev-Kyiv naming isue, essentially to keep it all together, plus to keep the Talk:Kiev page itself available for discussing other matters, which had become very difficult. I thought I was being clever... but it's come home to roost. See this appeal on my page. I can't read all that! Especially since I can barely read at all. :-( There are archives, yet! I'm always asking you to bail me out, it seems... but could you possibly drop by Talk:Kiev/naming and bring your masterful Gordian knot-cutter ? Bishonen | talk 12:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC).
Heartening to know there are still a few "ordinary" wikipedia editors keeping an eye on this article. I was beginning to feel a bit alone fighting blatant POV-pushers. Thanks for stopping by! Ohconfucius 14:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure whether you know about Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Workshop but I think - when you have time - yours is an important voice that needs to be added there. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. The history of the name Azerbaijan is not spammed anywhere. Where is it spammed? The information removed from the ADR article was completely relevant, and completely different than the content of the main article itself (it was summarized). Also, I checked the history and User:Khosrow II's "The name" section was completely different than the section removed. I dont even see what Khosrow II has to do with anything, if you warned that person a long time ago about spamming then what does it have to do with me and what was the point of mentioning it? Also, regarding the information, how does that section fall under Wikipedia:Spam? Thanks. Hajji Piruz 20:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Could you please explain why the request for Move at the Kyiv page was closed? It seemed that the people in the discussion were willing for it to go on for one week. Thanks, Horlo 23:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Could you explain why it was closable? Thanks, Horlo 01:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I am re-listing the RM for Kiev as it was closed without giving adequate time for everyone interested to participate. The RM notice was only placed on the talk:Kiev page on September 14, 2007, therefore the RM was extended to September 21, 2007. The article is also under review for GA status, so that will bring in some comments as well. I just do not want to see the same mistake made on July 30, 2007 repeated. That RM was closed in 15 hours. A week seems reasonable to me, what do you think? 199.125.109.35 04:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Where do you see that written? How can a closing admin designate a different timeframe from one that has been publicly announced? If you as an admin didn't like the timeframe you can certainly discuss changing it, but to change it with no discussion is just wrong. The whole problem with this mess is that the last RM was closed in 15 hours, with the reason given that it was not opened in good faith. Now you want to close this one in less than 48 hours? That is hardly an improvement, and will become a contentious issue if not rectified. Look you and I both know what the result is going to be, but please, make sure that the process is fairly done. 199.125.109.35 06:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not clear as to the intent of the second of your comments here. [24] Would it be possible for you to clarify? Thanks - Raymond Arritt 02:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I have opened Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Giovanni33 where you are a named party. You may wish to make a statement to the Committee there. Durova Charge! 03:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Do the "forces which favour banning Giovanni" and "are participants in the Committee mailing list" refer to me? I started the thread, yes, but I was putting the question to the community in order to resolve the problem, not simply blocking. I agreed with you about evenhandedness, (or at least, I raised that worry in the thread, too, and before you did, now that I look back), and I certainly was not happy to see the issue moved to CSN for an attempted vote to summarily ban him and derail productive discussion. I don't use the mailing list to advocate banning of political rivals, (and in this case, I think you might you might be surprised to hear what my political view really are, not that I ever discuss them on Wikipedia). Dmcdevit· t 04:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding linkage/parity, you may wish to review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal where Ilena attempted to build a case against another named party as it was becoming increasingly clear that she was headed for a siteban. [25] [26] This effort nearly succeeded, although Fyslee has turned out to be a pretty good editor without that particular disruptive influence. See User:Fyslee/Barnstars.
Also, in the current Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson case arbitrators were moving toward identical remedies for both editors until I dug around looking for evidence of a primary aggressor and requested a checkuser. Turned out Jmfangio was the reincarnation of a community banned editor and a third editor, unnamed in the arbitration case, was a low key long term vandal and had timed an impersonation account to coincide with one of Chrisjnelson's blocks. Both Jmfangio and the Notre Dame vandal are indefinitely blocked now, along with their sockfarms, and the Committee is deciding what to do with Chrisjnelson.
Obviously Giovanni33 and John Smith's are different from Ilena, Fyslee, Jmfangio, and Chrisjnelson. I raise these examples to demonstrate how important it is to examine each editor's behavior separately rather than assume parity in a messy situation. I've expressed this idea in different words at WP:ANI and WP:CSN and all of my actions are consistent with it. So please consider revising your statement at WP:RFAR: a good reputation takes a lot of hard work to build. Durova Charge! 04:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you help with removing bot tags from the Patria Roja and GUAS symbols, thanks. IMHO, the fair use guideline tagging has gone berserk, and some sort of collective intervention is necessary. I forces thousands of editors extra work, it accidentally leads to deletion of material that definately has a place in wikis and just makes people tired. Rules and regulations must serve a function, at this point functionality is subordinated to regulations. I still cannot understand the logic of having to write an essay to motive something as simple as "this symbol is the logo of xxx, to be used in the article of xxx". -- Soman 06:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Not that I blame you for this, you understand, but I'm hoping you might have a clue how to fix it. Commons images are being deleted left and right; now Solar System has no lead. Where are these images going and how do we get them back? Serendipod ous 14:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
And I don't appreciate you blanking your own talk page to erase my question. I pointed out what he said and I showed it wasn't true. So where is the attack? Sharru Kinnu III 23:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
What do you want to see, I will show it to you, just tell me what you need to know, I'll bring sources if thats what you want. Hajji Piruz 00:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Here are direct reference to the language of the Arranis (prior to Turkification, and note, they were not Armenians, but a seperate people who spoke a separate language). NOte that Grandmaster himself initially posted this very evidence in a discussion with the Armenians, using it to show that Armenians did not control the region, and now he refuses to acknowledge the very same evidence:
Al-Muqaddasi wrote in 985:
В Армении говорят по-армянски, а в Арране по-аррански; когда они говорят по-персидски, то их можно понимать, а их персидский язык кое в чем напоминает хурасанский. [27]
In Armenia they speak Armenian, and in Arran Arranian; when they speak Persian, they could be understood, and their Persian somewhat resembles Khorasani.
Ibn-Hawqal wrote in 978:
Что касается до языка жителей Адербейджана и большинства жителей Армении, то это персидский и арабский, но мало кто говорит по-арабски, а, кроме того, говорящие по-персидски не понимают по-арабски. Чисто по-арабски говорят купцы, владельцы поместий, а для многих групп населения в окраинах Армении и прилежащих стран существуют другие языки, как армянский — для жителей Дабиля и области его, а жители Берда'а говорят по-аррански. [28]
Too long to translate, the relevant line is: people of Barda speak Arranian.
Al-Istakhri wrote in 930:
Язык в Адербейджане, Армении и Арране персидский и арабский, исключая области города Дабиля: вокруг него говорят по-армянски: в стране Берда'а язык арранский. [29]
In Aderbeijan, Armenia and Arran they speak Persian and Arabic, except for the area around the city of Dabil: they speak Armenian around that city, and in the country of Barda people speak Arranian.
From the Western scholar Swietochowski:
The Turkic speakering Muslims of Russian held Azerbaijan, commonly known as Shirvanis and sometimes by the medieval name of Arranis... (page 10, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition)
Now please, ask Grandmaster for his sources and ask him to support his claims. Hajji Piruz 00:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
But what does that have to do with me? This is what is confusing me... Anyway, now that this whole thing has been cleared up, can we focus on the main issues now? I will contact you via e-mail if I am busy. Thanks. Hajji Piruz 00:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Piruz, here we see again how you mix up ancient Caucasian Albanians with modern day Azerbaijanis. The Arranians mentioned by Arab chronicles were Caucasian Albanians. See the article about Arran from encyclopedia Iranica:
Early Arran seems to have displayed the famed linguistic complexity of the Caucasus as a whole. Strabo 9.4, cites Theophanes of Mytilene that Albania had at least 26 different languages or dialects, and the distinctive Albanian speech persisted into early Islamic times, since Armenian and Islamic sources alike stigmatize the tongue as cacophonous and barbarous, with Estakhri, p. 192, Ebn Hawqal, p. 349, tr. Kramers-Wiet, p. 342, and Moqaddasi, p. 378, recording that al-Ranya was still spoken in the capital Barda’a or Bardaa in their time (4th/10th century). [30]
Bosworth mentions all 3 sources quoted by you and says that they speak about ancient Albanians. Now Tadeusz Swietochowski writes:
The Turkic-speaking Muslims of Russian-held Azerbaijan, commonly known as Shirvanis and sometimes even by the medieval name Arranis, differed from their ethnic siblings south of the Turkmanchai border in one essential respect: a large proportion belonged to the Sunni branch of Islam.
Albanians were not Turkic-speaking, so we are talking about Azerbaijanis, whose only difference from their ethnic siblings in the south was that there were many Sunnis among them. Shirvani/Arrani/Nakhichevani/Tabrizi, etc was only the regional denomination of Turkic people, i.e. Azeris. Such confusion in terms does not justify edits you make to a number of articles. We should distinguish between ancient people and more recent Turkic-speakers, who despite being descendants of Albanians were still a distinct people with a different language. Grandmaster 06:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Question, would you have closed the Kiev/Kyiv RM on the 16th if you had seen the schedule showing that it was going to be open at least until the 21st? Secondly, there are two conflicting policies, common english usage and a specified policy, to use Ukrainian National system. Since I have been moderating this RM it is upsetting to me that it was closed before I had a chance to summarize the various viewpoints and attempt to reach a consensus. You realize I hope that closing it early invalidates the RM? 199.125.109.35 02:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
My point is that by not announcing the RM we were not learning information that people like that had to offer. When the RM was finally announced on the 14th it was closed less than 48 hrs later, before I had had a chance to review the discussion and make suggestions, along with other more thoughtful editors. The reason I say it invalidates the process was proved by the fact that additional information was added. Here is what I do not wish to do. One, reopen a brand new RM, two, take this to ANI. Therefore I am asking that the RM be held open for four more days, until the 21st. I think that is enough to bring this to a closure. The idea of starting and stopping and starting and stopping and starting and stopping an RM is not good, but it is probably the best choice available. 199.125.109.35 04:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello El C. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue that you may be involved with. The discussion can be found under the topic WP:AN#Kiev/Kyiv RM. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and " no personal attack" policies. Thank you. |
199.125.109.35 01:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we may have been doing reverts at the same time just now. I hope I did not cause a mix up in the process. Kwork 17:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm a relatively new vandal fighter. I see that you do a huge amount of reverting vandalism. What I don't see is that you issue warnings to the talk pages of the people doing vandals. Nor do I see that you issue reports of vandalism to WP:AIV. Is there a reason for these omissions? You've been around longer than I so I figure there must be a reason. Sbowers3 17:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Please note: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Fucking%2C_Austria&diff=158772811&oldid=157754248 -- Otheus 18:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer on mentorship but the Armenia-Azerbaijan Arbcomm is too complicated and I have a general positive relationship with both sides. On a similar issue, I believe user Tajik has written many positive articles for Wikipedia. I would much prefer though to do whatever I am capable of in getting this generally positive contributor [33] unbanned and I will be serious/hard/harsh on him to make sure that he complies with all Wiki guidelines. If there is anything I can do, please let me know. -- alidoostzadeh 02:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you remember where you got Image:Lord Peel arrives.jpg from? Lupo 09:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey El C, long time no talk. How have you been? I have an issue with two users who seem to not want to accept any of the points, which are cited, that I am bringing up in a article for deletion page. Please look here [34] the two users I am referring to are leoboudv and thanatosimii. It seems that they ignore what I post, and the sources I provide, instead they keep saying, basically the same things to me. Please take a look and thanks in advance for your help.-- Moosh88 02:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Hajji Piruz is back after a few days of absence, and these are his first edits: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] As you can see, first thing he did was reverting a number of pages where his edits had no consensus. Once again, he restored "Etymology" section to the main article about Azerbaijan, which was removed by Ali Doostzadeh in accordance with the agreement we had with you that this issue would be discussed only in 1 article, dedicated to the topic, i.e. History of the name Azerbaijan. What do you think would be the best thing to do in this situation? -- Grandmaster 05:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
May I remind you that initially the section in Azerbaijan article was removed by User:Ali doostzadeh? This IP is his, [43] and so is his consequent edit. [44] I just rvd to Ali, because your edits have no consensus and are controversial. Moreover, you spam the same quotes across multiple articles in violation of our agreement. Grandmaster 06:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Same with Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan) and Iran-Azerbaijan relations: [45] [46] Your edits were removed by Ali, and you reverted him back. I don't understand why you are blaming me when your edits have no consensus on any of the articles you keep on reverting? Grandmaster 06:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You brought tears to my eyes. :) Jeeny 02:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Thank you for correcting it. I read through the article ( WP:SUBST) but have one question; you said it "created havoc". What did it actually do? - Rjd0060 03:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete deeceevoice's user page? I don't think it's fair the way that people are ganging up on her. I think he essay made valid points about wikipdeia. Is this really the kind of place where criticism is censored? It was not a personal attack it was criticism. I may have been wrong, I don't know the facts-- But, it really looks like people are trying to hide and delete criticism. That is not a good precedent to set. futurebird 14:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I heard you were having a tough time so I thought I would be friendly and drop off some extra energy for you. Enjoy! ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
On your edits to Notable people section in Trichy, if you had a chance to look at the history, you would see I recently curtailed the section and cleaned it. But an Anon undid it. So, I am reverting back to my edits, a couple of days ago. Feel free to chime in. - RC 13:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
...on my userpage. It's kinda funny though. Mr. or Ms. Satanic ugly ashkenazi Jewface could not possibly have known that two days ago my brother turned me on to this. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 14:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Heya El C, long time no speak. This is a little random, but I saw a revision of WP:AN where you were baited by another user. It was over a year ago, but I just wanted to say: you are a good admin, and a great editor, with a totally quirky sense of humour that I personally think it fantastic. Stick with it dude. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For seeing things as they are, and doing what any reasonable person would do. Keep up the good work, because certain type of people are going to keep pushing their rather disturbing points of view here. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC) |
I would like Dyskolos's talk page to be unprotected, so I can post that they were a good editor and that they will be missed, and that they were acting in good faith and their block was not due to trying to push a POV nor due to disruption, but just because they were using a proxy. A.Z. 04:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments regarding the blank, blank and blankety blank block that was given me over 2RR (yup, 2RR, and I thought I was reverting an edit-warrior, so I thought I was even exempt from 3RR). Anyways, keep up the good work. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Ready to swab the deck! | |
Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman Talk 03:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for the pic of the C-man on my talk page. Illustrations of Lovecraft characters are so much better than even on most of the Arkham jackets, not to mention the dreadful renderings on the Beagle Books (IIRC) of the '70s.
I think it was deCamp who described many of Lovecraft's monsters as resembling an Italian fish dinner. I'm not getting near Cthulhu armed only with bottles of olive oil and vinegar, if you don't mind. Cheers, Cecropia 14:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
After you mentioned The Call of ... I looked at the reviews on amazon and ordered it, and I'm now waiting...
HPL movies have been almost uniformly bad, with an occasional effort with some redeemable features, such as the dreadfully named "Die Monster Die" (IIRC) which was a passable (and unreferenced) version of The Colour Out of Space. But I'm looking forward to my "Calling." -- Cecropia 23:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. Let's cool down. When I first began editing here, I found my edits to Tove Jensen rejected by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson because they were original research. Fair enough. I didn't understand the rules, but now I do, and I'm still learning. I doubt if there's anyone who has a full grasp of all the rules and guidelines. That's a good thing, because WP is an organic entity with fluid boundaries. In the current situation, having kept a close eye on User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson, because I was seriously worried about his objectivity, and his style of admin, I messaged him on his talk page to express my concerns. This was intended to be helpful and to indicate that to ordinary editors such as myself that his style was confrontational rather than constructive. His response was to blank already uploaded images on my user page, without explanation. This is not constructive, in my view, it's revenge. As a result, I remain to be convinced that User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson is psychologically fit to remain as an admin on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, Jeffrey has many good qualities, but in my considered opinion they are outweighed by his apparent God-complex tempered with his intolerance and tendency to snipe. Just my POV, and I'm fairly new, but just look at my edit record. I want WP to be informative and entertaining, without being trivial. -- Rodhullandemu ( talk - contribs) 04:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the "provided that" that comes with this and wanted to use it. What is the "provided that" I should aim to comply with? Milto LOL pia 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
JPOV edit. [48] previous edit. [49] i revert it only previous edit. i did not edit by myself. i revert from old edit. this change [50] lack of "fact" JPOV edit without consensus. so, I remove it this JPOV edit. also, according to Japanese invasions of Korea, japanese samurai casualties(killed -death rate by korean soldier-) much more. so, this edit [51] is not based "fact". remove or modify is better. Replayamong23 10:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[54] ? Viridae Talk 12:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was:
In your edit summary, you say: "(yes, well, in case you didn't notice, it was linked to the automaker, and you did not revert me, you removed the link altogether)"
I'm guessing that you didn't notice this, where I removed the link added by the anon (which not only lead to Mazda, the car company, but was unnecessary as the previous sentence already had a link to Ahura Mazda).
After that, you continued with this change, which as I'd pointed out was unnecessary per the previous edit's reasoning.
As you'll notice, I did revert you, because I undid the changes you had made and returned to the previous version- that being, the version with no link on "Mazda" whatsoever.-- C.Logan 09:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Were there any remaining doubt, follow the diffs: [55] Proabivouac 09:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Cabinda is not universally recognised as part of Angola and it is therefore misleading to quote it as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franiel242 ( talk • contribs) 11:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Did you block that guy solely for his username or was it in part do to his SPA trolling? I feel he's at it again - Special:Contributions/MOASPN - he's throwing a certain project talk page off the topic with his drama-mongering. Milto LOL pia 19:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I should add that MOASPN is 'Musings of a Semi Private Nature' (per his user pages...) Privatemusings 23:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you can explain further what administrative power is being exercised by blanking someone's user page? Thank you for you patience in explaining. Basejumper2 19:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I also do. The vandelism warning was for blanking the rest of the user page. My understanding is that this is not an administrative priviledge any more than it is a priviledge of anybody else. If I am incorrect, correct me. Also, point me to the mildest vandelsim tag that can be used with a person who has been a member for years. Thank you. Basejumper2 19:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi El_C, please see this [56] and this [57] by User Yidisheryid ( talk · contribs) and my responses at User talk:Basejumper2#Aish Hatorah and User talk:Lookzar42#Reminder what puppets & co really evoke, and finally my last at User talk:IZAK#Sockpuppet?: "NOTE: I must now suspect that perhaps User Yidisheryid ( talk · contribs) is involved as a possible suspect since he has also recently been blocked for sockpuppeteering, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yidisheryid, and of all things he finds it worthy to leave messages of "comfort" to both User:Basejumper2 [58] and to self-admitted sockpuppet User:Lookzar42 [59]. So much for his antics. IZAK 13:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)" Maybe a Wikipedia:Checkuser of all three, User:Yidisheryid, User:Basejumper2 and User:Lookzar42 would be helpful and in order. Thanks a lot, IZAK 13:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're the same Moroccan faggot (retard) that edits as FayssalF? Well, I am saddened that you have surfaced from what should have been a deadly, bloody accident. I am further annoyed by your plastering of Che's image, poor Che..he would have shot you dead long ago. I am, however, rather amused by your flaunting of the revolutionary spirit, as I am certain you haven't an iota of it in you. We will find out whether or not you do, however, when we visit you in the near future (yes, we know who you are and how you look). You will undoubtedly tremble with fright! I hope your blind and ignorant admin tools do not fail you then but I know that they will. Until then, on with your anti-intellectualism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.219.208 ( talk) 00:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
3 months are enough. But no worries, she became notorious and many admins are blocking on the spot. It is just dynamic but we can live w/ that. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The submission did not give any third party reliable sources, and only provided the commission's own website. AFC has the rule that any submission without a reliable source can't be accepted. If you'd like to find some news articles about the organization, and you're sure of its notability, feel free to create it. Ariel ♥ Gold 10:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
As I told CambridgeBayWeather in the email that has not been addressed, it shall be my policy to never again contribute to Wikipedia. I shall only use my account to remove my statements from talk pages - such as the offending statement associated with the blocking of my account.
Wikipedia has lost this editor FOR EVER.
William R. Buckley —Preceding unsigned comment added by William R. Buckley ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I looked at this image. The issue was just that it didn't name the article where the rationale is supposed to apply ( WP:NFCC#10c). I fixed that. If you want, you can unprotect it, since that is the only issue I see with the rationale. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 01:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
A discussion involving you has been going on at the help desk. link. Just to let you know. Woodym555 17:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I was advised via the Help Desk to attempt to contact you again. Yesterday you used Bots to remove all posts I had made apparently without looking at the content. The information regarding Thailand's purchase and use of Hawk IIIs and Thailand use of the Corsair V93S model (an export model of the O3U) posted to the article is factual yet you chose to wipe all of it out. Yet, the article's claim that China used the Hawk III and the suggestion that only China used the Hawk III remains. You claimed there were products for sale on the website I had linked photos from. What products? Meanwhile you continue to allow blatantly commercial sites such as War Bird Alley (sells merchandise, advertising, etc.), Motor Books (sells aviation books among others) and Temora Aviation Museum (sells everything from jewelry to stuffed animals) to continue to link to some of the articles where you deleted my posts. Temora Aviation Museum actually has their own article. That behavior suggests a double standard is at play here. While I would like to make additions to articles that provide factual information and enhance Wikipedia, it appears anything I post will be automatically deleted. NYerkes 02:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I have calmed down and will answer your questions. First however I want to make a comment. While you may not understand this, reverting an article to eliminate verifiable factual text is insulting to a user. As stated in the Wikipedia help page, "It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor. If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted."
I could understand eliminating links, even more so now that a thoughtful person took the time to write asking me to try and work out the issues and explaining how Wikipedia works. The wholesale elimination of verifiable factual text without as much as a comment why as stated is as good as a slap in the face. It may be unjustified but I got angry. It is telling me and anyone else you do this that our participation is not wanted. I didn't like it and I doubt anyone else would. In one instance the revert now creates a factual inaccuracy.
In answer to your question, I own the photos and thousands more related to aviation and other points of interest in Thailand. I live here. I own a business here. I have a work permit here that allows me among other things to take photographs and shoot video nationwide. I have spent a substantial amount of time doing research into aviation (a hobby) and my commercial endeavors. I own over 1000 generic domains. Like the one in question most have natural type in traffic whether or not there is a developed website or not. I am also reasonably competent at SEO. My other developed domains which are not linked to Wikipedia are doing just fine without it. Of the domains I own, some of my domains are undeveloped, some are commercially developed others like the domain in question are developed but not commercially. The only reason I linked that domain is that the photos of those aircraft do not presently exist on Wikipedia and I do not want to give up my copyright by offering to share them with Wikipedia users. The thoughtful person who wrote me suggested licensing them under the commons license. After reviewing policy, for reasons I don't understand, Wikipedia appears to require a copyright owner to allow commercial use of copyrighted visual material if it is to be shared with Wikipedia users. I have no problem whatever with people reusing the information I add to article for any purpose. I am happy to provide it. In the future I simply won't add photographs when I don't want to release the copyright.
Meanwhile, after adding useful information about a couple of aircraft and their usage by Thailand in the French-Thai war I find the material removed and no one can assure me you won't do another wholesale deletion of legitimate material. You did not even offer that assurance when I first posted to your talk page. After reviewing your reverts and you do a lot of them I must say that nearly all I have seen protect Wikipedia particularly from vandalism. You are to be commended for that. However, in the future, please don't insult new editors by deleting copy even if they have made errors in their posts. If there was one error that must be deleted do that and leave the rest intact. Talk about what needs to be fixed in the remainder if anything.
Also, the links I mentioned to you remain. Personally I find two of them useful though they probably shouldn't be linked if the rules are to be equally enforced. One site however is pure unadulterated advertising including a copy of their Ebay articles for sale. There is no free information whatever on that site. Is there any reason they remain? Thanks NYerkes 11:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I just want to say thank you for fixing up the vandalism on my user page today :) is much appreciated Floorwalker 06:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I was surprised to see both Neil and yourself baiting each other in that thread, hence my "what the fuck". The "stop this" comment was directed at both of you. It wasn't related to the thread and my response it wasn't directed at only you it was directed at both of you. You appear to have mistaken my comments as directed at you only in support of Neil which wasn't the case. Viridae Talk 09:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that mate - you're right! Gormenghastly 11:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the changes to my talk page, and blocking the user. But I have a request, also -- could you take a look at this for me? It seems there's a whole mess of socks adding unsourced material to various articles, including (especially) that one. Because of the username similarity, it seems obvious enough to simply tell an admin, rather than filing a sock report. There are some other socks as well, I think -- I'll see if I can root them out. Gscshoyru 13:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey El C. I've been trying to read up on a lot in the last hour or two; I see that you disagree with my block of Jeeny, correct? Do you want to discuss some alternate solutions to this issue either here or via email? I'm open to suggestions about better ways to deal with the dispute. Picaroon (t) 20:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I have just been contacted by an editor of the German Wikipedia who is translating the English Uranus article, and she would like to know if we would be kind enough to upload our remaining images onto the Wikimedia commons. Problem is, I have no idea how to upload an image onto the Wikimedia commons, so I'm not sure what to do. Could you point me in the right direction? Thanks. Serendipod ous 12:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page
Legalism (Chinese philosophy) worked, and it has been
reverted or removed. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to
our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
wj32
t/
c
07:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Please ignore the previous warning :) -- wj32 t/ c 07:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I made a good faith edit on the page "Theory" which you reverted. I was wondering why. Any information would be appreciated. -- Thanks, AikBkj 15:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I will make my edits in smaller chunks explaining each as I go. In the first edit, I eliminated the word misguided which was used to describe the common usage of the term, theory. A common usage of a term is a legitimate usage while misguided is a pejorative judgement of that usage. Thanks, AikBkj 15:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not a registered contributor. I had added external links to the Nyaya page, why were they removed ? Whats wrong with putting up multiple sources of information? Google search on Nyaya does not yield sufficiently good results...
Somebody is continuously trying to add un-encyclopedic material to the Jammu and Kashmir article. See [61]. I have told the user to create a separate article on Human rights in Kashmir and not to create a sub-section on the topic as it does not meet Wikiproject Indian States guidelines. But he/she is not listening. Can you please help. Thanks -- Lokantha 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my user page. I really don't understand the satisfaction these people get. Illinois2011 18:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry to let you down. You guys have all been nice to me. - Jehochman Talk 19:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope this was meant in jest. It's not entirely obvious that it was. Raymond Arritt 02:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
ok.. sorryy.. Thank you for your kind reply. Will not do it again. Bharathwaaj 08:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Since when?
I normally wouldn't dream of touching another editor's talk page, but Jayjg has been absent for three months and people keep leaving him messages. I simply blanked it to draw attention to the fact that he's apparently quit the project, so that people stop wasting their time trying to get input from him. Gatoclass 11:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see, you think you have a mandate to dictate to me what I can and cannot do on Wikipedia on the basis of what is "obvious" and "common sense". And you have the hide to call me "presumptuous"? Thanks for the laugh. Gatoclass 12:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's one. To El C: your edit summary was angry, I wish you'd started out by assuming good intentions on Gatoclass' part, because I'm sure they were. To Gatoclass: I don't understand why it was necessary to blank the page, considering that the wikibreak notice at the top looks pretty conspicuous to me. Also, Jayjg's "E-mail this user" feature is active still, did you try e-mailing him to ask if he wanted it blanked? To both of you: I think you both meant well, and you really don't have any reason to be squaring up to one another like two alpha baboons. Now please collaborate nicely in posting an NPA template on me for calling you names. Bishonen | talk 12:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC).
Re [62]: You asked for proof. I provided proof in the form of a government web site, in both English and Portuguese. The article now has proper and authoritative citations for Portugal's official name in both English and Portuguese. Do what you want with other articles (which I highly question but won't involve myself in, for now at least), but don't change the wording on Portugal, as it is correct. Why you would question the accuracy of a government's own web site about its country's official name I cannot fathom. — Nricardo 14:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Future perfect will know. El_C 23:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Right, the r stand for republic! Thanks, I'm gonna create those two shortcuts. El_C 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
-- nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 02:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Wallowing in my RfA: This time it's personal... | |
My sincere thanks for your support in
my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. Doubtless it was an error to put one of the
government-bred race of pigmen in any position of authority, but I hope your confidence in me proves justified.
Even a man pure of heart and who says his prayers at night can become a were-boar when the moon is full and sweet. Fortunately, I'm neither a were-pig nor pure of heart so this doesn't appear to be an imminent danger to Wikipedia for the moment. Fortunate as well because were-pig hooves are hell on keyboards and none too dexterous with computer mice. If ever I should offend, act uncivil, misstep, overstep, annoy, violate policy, or attempt to topple the fascist leadership of Wikipedia, please let me know so I can improve my behaviour and/or my aim.
I am not an animal; I am an admin. And, of course, if there is any way in which I can help you on Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to ask me. Despite my japes, I am indeed dedicated to protecting and serving Wikipedia to the best of my foppish and impudent abilities. I will strive to be an admirable admin, shiny and cool, reasonable and beatific.
Pigman
what?/
trail
05:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
|
That doesn't look Kosher! El_C 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your tips on the use of internal links etc! Wschaap —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wschaap ( talk • contribs) 09:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for supporting my successful rfa which closed with 58 supports. If i am honest i am rather humbled by the unanimous support and i hope to live up to everyones expectations. If you ever need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks again. Woodym555 15:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wonderingif I might ask for a procedural question. In the ArbCom Enforcement page, a complaint was filed against Dreamguy for uncivility and edit-warring. As well, I was concerned that he was edting under a few different anonymous IP addresses. When asked about the alternate IP's, DG said it wasn't important. Admitedly, my contribution was loooong, to illustrate my point (and boy, do I wish I could replace it with a more succinct argument). Admin Jehochman noted as much, and suggested I post to SSP and RFCU, which I did. Because I had posted notices of the SSP and the ArbCom Enforcement complaint (which another user had failed to do), Jehochman reported me to AN/I, thinking I was picking on DG for "sport." In the unsuing AN/I, I was asked to present evidence of edit-warring, which I did to the satisfaction of Jehochman. As well, the SSP report indicated that DG was using an anonymous IP to edit-war in Jack the Ripper article, and supporting those edits, violating 3RR. Another admin, Gnangarra, noted the similarities between the edits, and blocked DreamGuy. In your response in the ArbCom enforcement, you asked for "the organization? The coherence? The intelligibility?" Were you looking for more than the links to the appropriate conversations in AN/I and SSP? I don't mind providing the infor provided in the linked discussions, but I wasn't sure what precisely you were asking for. Let me know, and I will act on it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Dearest El C,
Thank you for your participation in
my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your support is very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to
The_undertow and
Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.
Dear El C,
Responding to his bad block of my IP, Jehochman 1) accuses me of being you
[64] 2) removes "unwanted conversation” about his block
[65] 3) and protects his talk page against "trolling"
[66].
24.19.33.82
07:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Please be aware of this inquiry, [67] which Jehochman blanked earlier. [68] 24.19.33.82 03:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdenting)
The thread was deleted and I thought that all ANI threads were to be archived (didn't know that what the user was trying to do was to deny recognition...that one's on me). I reverted to copy the massive thread, archived it in it's proper place and then redeleted it. If it looks "bizarre" it was not my intention, just trying to archive. Hope that clears up the "bizarreness". Take Care... NeutralHomer T: C 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're on top of the latest edits. Let me know if you need any help. Oh -- and I don't know anything about Biblegateway. Was he giving links to verses? Tim 18:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello El C. I've tried over and over, to get El Jigue to stop gossiping on the Cuban related articles. Just moments ago at the Cuba page, I slightly lost my patients with him. Perhaps there's a slight 'language barrier' involved with EJ's inability to comply (maybe he doesn't quite understand what I'm telling him). Could we get somebody who speaks Spanish to talk with him? Maybe then he'll understand. GoodDay 21:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I remember you as a helpful admin. We have a User:Tawhid Jihad who, apart from meeting Wikipedia's requirements for inappropriate user names (it's a play on an Islamist terrorist organization) also engages in off-topic and offensive discussions over at the Bosnia and Herzegovina article. Just some examples here, here, here and here. Could you block this guy or how would one go about getting it done? Cheers Osli73 09:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[69] Good stuff, even if it is sort of unorthodox. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 10:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I've received an appeal to semi-protect the article David Livingstone. I see you've reverted vandalism there a couple times recently. What are your thoughts? I see that IP vandalism is north of 25% of recent edits, but there was also a good IP edit recently and the overall volume appears to be at the annoying but manageable level. GRBerry ( talk) 14:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting Jammu and Kashmir. Apparently, the same user have been vandalizing Indophobia and Anti-Pakistani sentiment. Please take appropriate action. -- AmJay ( talk) 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
being deleted. Miranda 06:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi El C, Can please re-examine your warning for my edit warring on Khurshidbanu Natavan. Where a picture was being used as a source. All I did was just back and forth editing and discussion all aimed at NPOV-ing the article
My first edit was to ask for a rewrite [70]
I removed the bogus source(image)and added couple of fact tags [71]
I replaced just the bogus source with a fact tag [72]
My first revert [73]
My second and last revert [75]
I tried to rewrite it myself and moved the so-called source to the external links [77]
I give up and add POV and fact tags to the article
The article is still POV, but I remove the tag and the article from my watchlist.
Now do you think I edit warred? or tried and failed to bring balance and neutrality to the article. Ehud Leser, Grandmaster, Atabek and Parishan all edit warred, tried and succeeded in include the unverifiable image as a source. I really appreciate if you could re-examine your decision to warn me for edit warring and post your reply here Thanks. VartanM ( talk) 21:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
How is this not harassment and wikistalking? Do you still think using unverifiable images as a source is neutral? VartanM ( talk) 22:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at this. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 22:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
For this. The thought is much appreciated. Remember, though, you had one way of preventing this and I had several, although I didn't realize the mistake at the time. Regards, Durova Charge! 01:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Wait, you "own copyright on the report Giano II posted" — I'm asking you to release it. What's going on? El_C 03:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Firstly Persia is not archaic, it was used solely as Iran’s official name until 1935, we still have people living from that era!
Secondly, as I have displayed the reference, Iran and Persia can officially be used interchangeably. Please search for Prof. Ehsan Yarshater and his work on this matter.
But most importantly is that I as an Iranian-American always call myself Persian, all Iranians call themselves Persian, we have the Persian Gulf, Persian Rugs, Persian cuisines, Persian cats and many more present usages of Persia that undoubtedly reflect the Iranian people and culture.
As a summery, Iran is Persia solely until 1935, interchangeably since 1935, and commonly used in many vocabulary in Present English. Therefore, it is rational to place an indication of this undisputable connection of words as the name of the article at hand.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argooya ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Jeeny (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry, I felt like a doof right after I made it--I didn't see that there was a list AFTER the references section. Normally, that's the last part of the page. When I saw it I tried to go back and edit, but it had already been changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.22.77 ( talk) 04:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you fully protect page Marshal of the Soviet Union please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staygyro ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
[81] Did I neglect an e-mail? If so, it was unintentional. I've been swamped for a week. Very hard to keep on top of everything. Durova Charge! 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
So then I repeated it (refractored text enclosed) |
---|
Thank you For this. The thought is much appreciated. Remember, though, you had one way of preventing this and I had several, although I didn't realize the mistake at the time. Regards, Durova Charge! 01:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Wait, you "own copyright on the report Giano II posted" — I'm asking you to release it. What's going on? El_C 03:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
|
So, now there is no reason for you not to respond, for better or worse. Regards, El_C 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
In light of today's events [84] which I have just now learned about, I will not press on the matter further. El_C 23:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The fractal orange image thing covers the options at the bottom to click on so I can see your contribs etc. If I try and get at them from there, I just get the pic. Could you possibly move it up a bit? Maybe it's just when viewed by firefox, which some people, like me, use? Merkinsmum ( talk) 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've got a problem with a couple of editors cooperating/coordinating their edits which I feel really amounts to ganging up. See below:
==cooperate on the Bosnian Genocide article==
That is what we should do, not revert each other's versions. The newest version (mine) is perfectly fine, although the intro could be better rephrased. So work with me on protecting my version (which practically includes your version as well). Ancient Land of Bosoni ( talk) 22:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC) [85]
Would this be tantamount to breaking any WP rules of etiquette? Osli73 ( talk) 16:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I have to file a complaint against DreamGuy in ArbCom Enforcement, of personal attacks and incivility. As you took issue with the method by which I introduced evidence last time, might I ask for your guidance in filing it correctly? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
As the blocking admin, I draw your attention to [87] and I seek your acquiescence in the edit proposed. You may also wish to comment here, if you choose: [88] Alice.S 10:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit baffled by your link to [91] as a "related article" was that a whoopsy?
OK,you asked for it: Although User:Perspicacite has been warned many times before (eg: [92], [93]) about claiming ownership of articles and subsequently reverting editors without examining the damage he is causing to our texts, he continues to refuse to engage in dialogue on his own talk page.
Instead, he just removes without adequate and appropriate reply (eg: [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99]) or comment (apart from mendacious edit summaries) relevant questions, which is why I am asking other editors here if there are any reasonable justifications for continually reverting (eg: [100] and [101] and [102] and [103] and [104]) to versions of our article which have errors such as:
? Alice.S 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Because, with the many irrational reverts it has become quite difficult to maintain our Rhodesia article in an error-free state, I have begun to maintain a fork in my user space: User:Alice.S/Rhodesia.
You and any other editor are very welcome to edit that fork (with the sole exception that all changes to the fork must be made by editing the forked version and not by using revert or undo tools or substituting the entire fork). The current forked version, at the time of making this comment is this, and I intend to substitute this better version for Perspicacite alias Jose João's version during the next few hours - obviously I will update it with any appropriate edits made there (and/or to the main article) in the meanwhile. Alice.S 10:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. Since there was no effective self rule before 1923, I can not understand why P wises to continually revert to "Southern Rhodesians ruled themselves until 1923"
I sincerely believe that the version I wish to introduce again:
"Southern Rhodesians ruled themselves after self-government began in October 1923 under the first Premier, Charles Patrick John Coghlan."
is more accurate. Please note the distinction between "until" and "after".
Changing "[[Central Intelligence Organization]] (spelled incorrectly with a z according to our article and that organisation) and other trivial changes, are just mentioned for the sake of completeness and to emphasise that P is reverting because of the editor and NOT the content. I regard this as a content dispute, he regards this as a war to get an "enemy" banned. Alice.S 14:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
While I applaud your closing of the MFD page on RFC/U and the suggestion that it should be improved, it appears that little improvement is forthcoming. What is your opinion on this matter? >Radiant< 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you happen to see this older message of mine to UC, also on the Proposed Decisions talk? Bishonen | talk 10:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC).
Please have a look at this. There is another edit war between me and him. Can you intervene and protect the page? -- Jai Dixit ( talk) 01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
HEY THANKS EL_C FOR BEING FAIR AND NEUTRAL ON THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR ISSUE LETS HOPE NO INDIAN CHANGES AT AGAIN VIVA LA REVOLUTION —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.100.224 ( talk) 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem at all. Actually, I wrote most of the article a while ago (early 2007?) and, since no one really gave me much feedback, I put it on the back burner and sort of forgot about it. Glad that you are taking interest, and I hope we can improve the article. Didn't realize that on some other Kashmir-related pages (as evident from the posts above) major edit-wars were in progress. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)