![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Welcome!
Hello, Enric Naval, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
I see you've been here for a long time as a user, but I thought you might like a welcome anyway! Inner Earth 22:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
House of Aragon/Barcelona
Talk:House_of_Barcelona#Barcelona.2FAragon.2C_whatever
Thank you! I will use these standards from now on. I appreciate that! -- Polylerus ( talk) 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --
SineBot (
talk)
09:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No worries, Enric. You didn't waste my time. I'm just sick and tired of American grammar and spelling being used concerning European affairs - again not your fault. Cheerio!
I'll have to go through the article again - don't worry! The only one I noticed was "onward" when it should be "onwards" in English. I'll skim through it again - there weren't that many to begin with.
Hey, there! Thanks for your note.
I do remember nominating this article for speedy deletion but I'm not an administrator so it must have been someone else that deleted it. Since the article was speedy deleted, the creating editor is not restricted in recreating the article the same way he/she would have been if it was deleted through an AfD discussion. If you feel like the article shouldn't be included in Wikipedia, you can nominate it for
AfD and I will be sure to stop by the discussion and lend my opinion.
Thanks again for contacting me.
Peace!
SWik78 (
talk)
13:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your notice on Randy Blackamoor's page. My issue with him is he consistently ignores WP:CIVIL [1] and doesn't respond to feedback, except for short periods of time. I have even recommend that he get mentored. [2]
Just checked out your reasoning... quite correct in what you say now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.44.177 ( talk) 13:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey,
I'm still new to wikipedia, and I responded back to your comments on my talk page. Is that correct protocol?
Mpalmer22 ( talk) 14:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I'm still new and still trying to figure out how Wikipedia works, since it seems different from most other things I've worked with. You've raised a lot of valid points. I don't really have any problems with what you said, I guess I'm just trying to figure out how best to contribute. I do work and feel that his content is going to be useful and helpful, but I'm not sure how it would be best used without any conflicts of interest or going beyond my understanding. Any ideas? Thanks for the help.
Mpalmer22 ( talk) 14:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Enric Naval. I've repaired the talk page. The article Generation Z has actually been nominated twice for deletion. The first nomination, from 2006, located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Z was in fact a delete result. I had nothing to do with that discussion or result. The second nomination, the one that I closed in 2008, was a keep result, located here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Z (2nd nomination). I've fixed the talk page to reflect both discussions, located here. I wouldn't recommend a new deletion discussion as the last one only closed about a month ago. If you disagree with the closing of the discussion and feel that the discussion as it happened and containing what it contains should have led to deletion instead of being kept, you can list it at Deletion Review. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 07:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of UC-26C, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-26.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 00:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not currently prodded. You did a good job of providing references, but the tone is still too advocatory/promotional, with a side of "here's how it works." Generally, "here's how it works" is not a good thing to see in an encyclopedia article, for tonal reasons if nothing else. It smacks a little of the newspaper article or even press release. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 22:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Re your query: no, it actually isn't from the book you posted, but was worked up from a 17thC copperplate image on the Kabbalah page. It does, I agree, look rather like the one you put up though, so if it has to come off, then it comes off. All that work in paintbox/PaintShopPro for nowt! :( abafied (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
"If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice." I'm not sure I follow what you mean when you say the template says it shouldn't be removed? Perhaps you think I created this article? I did not. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know that was a tag for speedy deletion. Thanks. BTW, do you think my signature is too big-- RyRy5 talk 22:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Please, leave the sister cities alone, Ill try to find some information. Just keep them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright, Ill make sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Good job finding my Secret Page. By the way, what name was it. Was it hamhampopo. That was the only strange name I could remember.-- RyRy5 talk 17:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This is my own program for my adoptees. I'm not trying to create a new program that way. In My program I, give my adoptees tests to complete. It helps them learn more about wikipedia. If they do well, I then ask them to graduate. This is OK, right.-- RyRy5 talk 19:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Last year I made a gif for free use on Wikipedia, from a photo of Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi by the photographer, Mayotte Magnus. She had given her permission for the image to be used on WP, provided the photo itself was credited to her on the Image Page. I didn't understand the WP copyright process, couldn't find or fill in the right forms and it was deleted. I'd like to re-upload it, if that's still possible, but would need help with the form-filling/finding. Can you help, please?
I've also since found out that the same photo has been used by other organisations on the internet. abafied ( talk) 14:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added the fair use summary, but are you saying that, in addition, I need both a free-use license and a fair-use license, or am I being totally stupid? abafied ( talk) 15:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help, again, enric. It's appreciated. abafied ( talk) 16:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep them there for a while, I will find some information. But do not delete them yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Robert Zeltser ( talk • contribs) 15:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Just write citation needed next to the ones I wrote. Then I will find some information. But do not delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Robert Zeltser ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I guess my I didn't know that. Sorry.-- RyRy5 talk 20:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No. This is not my image. I have uploaded an image which was a photo of Retiro, in Buenos Aires. This is the 9 de Julio Avenue. You will see that the title is incorrect.
-- Gonza777 ( talk) 00:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I'm sorry if I came off as harsh or mean in that discussion. I was thinking about it just now, and realized that I wasn't very considerate in that TfD. You're right to bring your concerns to TfD, and I do understand the argument about discouraging the use. -- Ned Scott 03:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted this one in the past as non-notable, and now the guy has revived it. He has been upfront in his efforts to make his case, so I feel ethically bound not to speedy or even prod the article; but do you feel he's made even a remote case for passing WP:COMPANY? Frankly, I don't. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
When I add each one, I will try to get source for it. I will do my job best.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Robert Zeltser ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I already archive everything over 20 days; 9 threads this morning alone. -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. Actually I was holding back. That wasn't Rich.lewis? (e.g. "I still perosonally [sic] think..." Did he say something earlier? Or is it a joke?) Thanks for the reminder all the same. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Enric. My dad is not going to use his account anymore. Also, it said on your reminders to check new pages often. Would you like the New Pages Patroller Userbox? It is exactly like your recent changes userbox except that it is instead "new pages".-- RyRy5 talk 18:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Per this edit, I'll just intrude here for a moment to give you some help. First, never ever ever, unless it's something dramatic, refactor someone else's post to the talk page, especially the postings of a very experienced editor. You might want to check out WP:TALK for some helpful guidance. In addition, if there are too many colons, you can reduce indent, especially if you're starting a new thought. Some people are creative, I just type <RI> meaning "reduce indent". It's always good form to state that you're reducing the indent. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll find source on them then.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 07:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar! There were a couple more articles that I had hoped to cite last night. I'll try and do it soon. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope an admin gets to it soon. I wonder how Aimar chose you. Enigma message 14:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I joined it. I would also like you to join this if you can:
-- RyRy5 talk 00:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to argue with me on my talk page in reasonably polite language as much as you choose. You are not welcome to use it as springboard for attacks on other editors. Comments such as "Right now I could be way harsher to you and get away with it." no matter whom they may be addressed to, are not appropriate. In fact, it seems imprudent language, to say the least, in any situation, on or off wikipedia To be fair to others, I am deleting your last few comments. Please dont take it personally, but they don't belong there. DGG ( talk) 01:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Go to my user talk.
Bf2 ( talk) 14:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Enric Naval/Archive 1! I'm currently planning the launch of the WikiProject Beijing, depending on if enough other editors would be interested in such a project. I saw you have edited the main Beijing page recently and therefor might be interested. If you are, please sign: User:Poeloq/WikiProject_Beijing. As I am posting this to quite a few editors, I am not watching your page and would ask you to reply with any comment or questions on my talk page. Cheers, Poeloq ( talk) 20:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL, it was a joke. Today is April Fools Day! :) Apologies for any confusion though. :) K. Lásztocska talk 23:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
If what I'm doing makes me look bad, then let it be so. I feel very strongly about this topic, and I think that you people who want to delete many of the secret pages are, in a sense, coercing others by forcing them to delete these. I admit, some of these are very irritating, but some others aren't. Regarding my edit summary, I'm not really seeing where you're trying to go with this. Are you saying that I am not using Wikipedia how it's supposed to be because I tend to edit my userspace a lot and other non-articles, i.e. templates? Are you saying that each Wikipedian is supposed to have only one or two edits per page? Please clarify this, because I feel right now like you're trying to criticize me for so many things, but I'm not really sure what you're trying to do by criticizing me. I just remembered... please put your criticisms on my editor review page. I'm apologize if this is too long. –The Obento Musubi ( Contributions) 17:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 20:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I sometimes take things the wrong way. If my reply sounded at all sarcastic or attacking, I apologize; I was just sort of irritated this morning. Sorry! It's not your fault at all. –The Obento Musubi ( Contributions) 22:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
No no: this is how you do it =P Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 17:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw this comment, and I didn't want to discuss on Ldemery's page, since he's a bit odd to me. I think that many of us prefer anonymity, for whatever reason. There are individuals who have been attacked for posts here. There was a professor of Medicine in Toronto, who, as a result of his edits to the Abortion article, was outed and attacked. I think they even accused him of pedophilia or something as repulsive. I intentionally do not edit in any article with which I have a professional interest, just so I do not have to claim to be an "expert", and therefore, do not have to make an Essjay mistake. So, I would never, under any circumstance, agree to publish anything about me. And Ldemery's requests are ridiculous at any rate. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not like the naked accusations you are making against User:DanaUllman. [5] Please include evidence in the form of diffs to substantiate what you say; otherwise, you may find yourself blocked for violations of civility and assume good faith. Jehochman Talk 21:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 20:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Updated a bit. Here's what I think is the best new section: [6] Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
He created yet another new sockpuppet again. ( User:Radiospeed) What shall we do? - Danngarcia ( talk) 16:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with my rational, the issue of independence in 1700's is disputed, yet presented as a fact, and large portions of pre-Islamic history have been neglected or suppressed while the minor events in post-Islamic history (ie Saudi tribal incursions) have been given undo weight. Please do not remove the tag, I am merely asking third-party users who are interested or familiar with the topic, yet not associated with the topic, to review it for neutrality, as most of the editors who have constructed the section in its current form such as User:Arabbi, User:Slackerlawstudent and User:Dilmun , appear to be from from an Arab background (either Saudi Arabia or Bahrain). Please do not remove the tag. -- -- 07fan ( talk) 17:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Enric, thanks v. much for your intervention and taking the time to review the POV tags on the Bahrain and History of Bahrain pages. I think the interpretation is the right one, given that the justification on the Talk:Bahrain page used for placing the tags provides nothing specific that can be refuted and there's no justification at all on the Talk:History of Bahrain page.
On the Talk:Bahrain page, User:07fan has been invited to amend the page to include the information he wants as per wikipedia's POV policies, but hasn't done so. With 07fan's reverts of the deletion of the tags we're back to the same situation, whereby User:07fan's providing nothing specific with sources that can be responded to yet insists on leaving the tag there.
If this is acceptable under wikipedia policy, then this again raises my original point at the start of this subsection: does the policy need to be tightened up on POV tagging?
Thanks,
Dilmun ( talk) 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your false accusation that "07fan is clearly not abiding by this policy on Bahrain page, since he has engaged on drive-by tagging of other tags [7], has not made any other edits to the article except for tagging (which means that he didn't try to mend the article before or after tagging)"
Since when an editor needs to ask for permission to place a fact tag in front of an obvious false claim that English is the official language of Bahrain? The fact that you're using that as an example that I engaged in "drive-by tagging": shows your total lack of knowledge of the issue at hand, and a total disregard for WP:AGF and associated polices. I invite you to take back your false accusations, and assume good faith. Also, "POV-check-secton" is the right tag, not "POV-section", unless you're disputing the section in question, which I doubt, given your unfamiliarity with the topic. -- 07fan ( talk) 22:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
By – Mattisse Talk, more than an hour after you warned him ... He is still going on about Notability Redthoreau ( talk TR 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Enric,
Regarding your solution to the POV tag on the Bahrain page you proposed on 6 April, you didn't go forward with it because the other two editors came to an agreement to go for RfC, with 07fan stating that he was going to file a request the following day. Its now over two days and nothing's happened. Therefore, I think we should go with your proposal, which is most certainly in line with wikipedia's guidelines on tagging:
Three days starting from today seems reasonable for those who want to keep the tag to provide concrete information. Otherwise the tag goes.
Dilmun ( talk) 23:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Enric, given wikipedia's policy above, is there any onus on me not to put wikipedia's rules on tagging into place and, as you proposed before, give 07fan 3 days to come up with some concrete sources to substantiate his objections before deleting the tag? I wasn't a party to the agreement to go to RFC, but the RFC 07fan's raised on the page doesn't relate to the issue of the POV tag but to the page's content - even though the placing of the tag was the issue of debate when the two users agreed to go for RfC. I'm not saying an RFC can't take place & I'd welcome it, but an RFC doesn't require a section tag; browsing through the pages listed on the RFC page and few of them have POV tags on the page.
Furthermore, 07fan has stated that the tag can only be removed when the page has been reviewed by "third-party users who are familiar with the topic". How this is defined and work in practice is unknown, and do you know of anything within wikipedia's policies that could support such an approach?
Dilmun ( talk) 09:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: even if looks like a content dispute, we are still using the POV tag because the editor disputing the section claims that the lack of information is due to a POV. (Then again. I compel 07fan to find sources for the missing information and post them on the talk page, so the info can be added to the article). -- Enric Naval ( talk) 10:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
:D
I think that you need to look at my comments on 07fan talk page
[8] --
Enric Naval (
talk)
13:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Refering to your message: About this edit [1], the prefered domain by the city council is ".cat" even if examination of it would indicate that it's just a redirection to ".es". From a neutral point of view of wikipedia, none of them is preferable to the other one, and there are political reasons for Barcelona prefering .cat and many of the internal links on their website point to bcn.cat even if you enter thought bcn.es, so let's use .cat and leave it at that --Enric Naval (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
well the use of both .cat and .es at the same time is as you said for political reason, so then, why take sides? bcn.cat probably just used to apeace the nationalists, but the real domain is .es which points to the country where Barcelona is. At any rate both should be present. Besides, some other wikipedia languages use .es (ie Galego and Spanish). If there are two domains, let's include both, there are two domains for a reason
Well, ERC, PSC and ICV were voted by the people, but from that you can't infer that people elected them to form a coalition. The Govern had to mainly apease ERC I guess as you say, which is a party centred on identity and ethnic politics... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahuelmarisi ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I appreciate your work on recognising and banning vandals on the Tanoli page. The page has improved and is now in very good state. I want to know how the stubs regarding 'factual accuracy' and 'tone' of the article can be removed as these are no longer necessary there. take care Wikitanoli ( talk) 02:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for you consideration and removal of those stubs, I will footnote refrences and further improve the quality of the article. Cheers! Wikitanoli ( talk) 17:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 15:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, it seems that you believe that if you throw enough mud at the walls that some of it will stick (there are too many instances to reference here, but you certainly know about which I am referring). I sincerely hope that you will now focus on content issues rather than attacking the messenger. The fact that I remain civil and that I work to provide RS, notable, secondary references, and NPOV encyclopedic information has seemed to inflame you. It is a tad ironic that you have asked me to take a break, when it seems that you are spending a lot more time and energy evaluating me and the people who appreciate me than I spend on wikipedia in entirety. I hope that you will show good faith by working harder towards moving to consensus rather than towards attacking me. Can't we get along? If not, please consider taking your own advice and take a wiki-break or focus your editing on other subjects to which you are less emotionally connected. Let's move into a different gear. DanaUllman Talk 04:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, but I'm afraid I'm not responsible for the edits outlined in this message:
Please stop. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to
User:Colchicum, you will be
blocked from editing. Also, unexplained removal of text on
Economy_of_Canada, Spanish Inquisition
[17], George Shrinks
[18], etc --
Enric Naval (
talk)
15:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I recall that I reverted the George Shrinks vandalism edit. I think the user you should be directing this message to is actually User talk:64.141.49.2.
24.84.5.55 ( talk) 05:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 09:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Uhm... I don't want to be to conclude it too soon but I think he created another sockpuppet ( User:Martindanza). Check out his recent contributions. Thanks! - Danngarcia ( talk) 15:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I added the attributions and did a little cleanup. Critic-at-Arms ( talk) 16:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, not needed, but thanks for the thoughful notice regarding it. Best wishes for a good weekend. - House of Scandal ( talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Good work on cleaning this stuff up. Viriditas ( talk) 09:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
No point in voicing on the AFD. NPOV is an editorial problem. Sceptre ( talk) 16:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm waiting for you to explain what's the problem with my version of Coat of arms of Catalonia. -- Jotamar ( talk) 14:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad that you have taken the time to revise the recent versions in Coat of arms of Catalonia, and it's obvious that you know Wikipedia policies very well. Anyway, I think you haven't reached to the root of the problem yet:
Ditto
Anyway, thanks for the advice. I won't be becoming an admin until maybe in at least 6-8 months.
Well, I've been doing good. I redesigned my userpage if you haven't notice, but let's get to the important parts. I've been really active, editing articles. I'm also in the verge of upgrading 2 articles for WP:GA.
How about you?-- RyRy5 ( talk) 01:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I was reading through your evidence here, and it seems that your provided diff for the claim "Claiming effects similar to cold fusion" doesn't really support it. I can see Dana talking about atomic bombs here, but this is far removed from cold fusion. Did you perhaps link the wrong diff by mistake? -- Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 04:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The homeopathy article and related pages are on article probation, due to past editing problems. Please read the terms at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation and be sure to comply.
Hello Enric, after your recent contribution here I realised that you haven't been formally notified yet, although obviously you already know about it. Please be aware that you are responsible for what you propose, even when OffTheFence has proposed it before you. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think that the list can be helpful someway but we can't check whether if some of the stations are real since it only shows the number of stations in every region in the Philippines. Also Pinoybandwagon and his sockpuppets created radio nav templates by province and/or by city. I'll also try to find a more detailed list so that we can verify those articles if they are real or not.
I wish that NTC will create an updated list like this... - Danngarcia ( talk) 13:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
(moved here from User talk:Doug for unified discussion)
What template did you use for the exclamation mark
here? I use {{
clerknote}}
, but it generates the text "Clerk note:" and I think that it's not totally appropiate for a non-clerk like me to use it, and I would like to use the same template as you, but I don't know its name --
Enric Naval (
talk)
20:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for moving the lead sandbox thing out of 'mainspace' - it's clearly a better fit where you've put it, and I hope it can achieve something useful in its new home - so thanks for that! cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 00:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Any comments and/or opinions on it?-- RyRy5 ( talk) 02:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is the the link to the discussion goes back to the 2006 discussion. I was not aware that the article was AfD, but I can tell that the link is incorrect. Mynameisnotpj ( talk) 03:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you again for your offer to provide "concrete evidence". I went through the links you provided and analysed them in the "Notes" subsection on my talk page. If you think I've missed anything, I would appreciate it if you would take the time to find the diffs. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 11:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification. Perhaps I am misreading, but I think you are misrepresenting a number of facts in the section you added regarding me.
You wrote On the same section User:Anthon01 tells Jim that he was topic banned also for removing the category [37], however, on the ban notification on his talk page we can see that he was actually banned for stonewalling, and that at the time of his comment on 3 February he had been already warned for socking to avoid the ban.
1) I never removed the category. I only made a suggestion and was banned for making the suggestion. Additionally, a section in RSN on the matter where 15 editors weighed in, 10 of 15 editors agreed that the standard for pseudoscience was not met by the available references. In that section the 'best of the best' reference was rejected as proof of homeopathy as pseudoscience. [ [20]] Here is the result of that tally abbreviated. [21]
2) At the time of my comment I was not guilty of "socking to avoid the ban." FT2 wrote
“ | "He also emails that his computer being logged out, he wasn't aware of east718's message at the time of his 2nd post as an IP, so he posted as an IP, then realized it was logged out, then saw the message. Again no reason I can see to not give this good faith. ... As a result I'm inclined to give good faith that there was not a deliberate intent to circumvent scrutiny, but that not remembering to log in has had that effect and caused difficulties. Hopefully that's behind
now."[ [22]] |
” |
I assert that this misrepresenting of accusations constitute victimism, and I use Anthon01's comment to show how usual and widespread it is even between editors that claim victimism. I assert that those editors really believe that they are victims of bias and that they are not lying consciounsly. They actually believe that they are not misrepresenting anything, even when pointed at solid evidence, and this causes problems with getting them to recognize that they ever breached a policy even in the most obvious of cases.
3) You may want to change this. Anthon01 ( talk) 00:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I have responded to your statements here. [23] Anthon01 ( talk) 01:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You wrote:
On the same section User:Anthon01 tells Jim that he was topic banned also for removing the category for saying that the category should be removed [44], however, on the ban notification on his talk page we can see that he was actually banned for stonewalling, Anthon01 contested the stonewalling claims saying that no diff was provided on MastCell page,on ANI again on ANI, it's on this last ANI thread where Jehochaman finally tells him "My impression is that you are tendentiously pushing a point of view, using whatever measures you can to try to get your way and frustrate the editors who oppose you. Look at your own contribution history. Virtually every edit you make related to homeopathy fits into that pattern. I think East718 can provide specific diffs to support their actions ..."
You are making a diffless claims. If you really want to get you point across you should provide the proof necessary in the form of diffs. Otherwise all you have is rumors.(he said, she said) I was banned soon after posting the "remove the categoties" comment. East718 never provided any diffs and neither did Jehochaman. Jehochaman says "East718 can provide specific diffs," but East718 never presented any diffs.
User:Fyslee also told Anthon01 about disruption User_talk:Fyslee#H before the topic ban, and, from his comments to Anthon01 about the topic ban, does not disagree with the east718's reasons."
The link you provided on "Anthon01 about the topic ban" are not comments made to me. east718 never provided and diffs, just a baseless claim. I asked him 3 times to provide them. He disappeared. You supporting evidence is shoddy. If you really are serious about your RFa and want to be taken seriously, then you need to prove your POV with diffs. Anthon01 ( talk) 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
At least in my regard, you are wasting your time. You think because Fyslee said the ban was justified that that proves it? Fyslee and I are often on the oppositte ends of content. Have you been here long? Arb isn't going to make a decision without diffs. If you want to prove stonewalling then you have to provide diffs, not someone else's diffless claims. Get the diffs that prove it. Anthon01 ( talk) 19:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
And why do I care about someone suggesting you become or thinking you're an admin? Anthon01 ( talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
My mistake. I meant RFAR. Anthon01 ( talk) 22:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you Vanished user? Anthon01 ( talk) 22:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Leave my page alone. Anthon01 ( talk) 14:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
His name is not on my page. Adam is a common name. Anthon01 ( talk) 15:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to say thanks so, um... thanks! Oh yes, Justin Masterson made his Major League Baseball debut yesterday. So I can probably find some more info about him.-- RyRy5 ( talk) 14:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 16:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into that IP's report and for highlighting the dead link on Feminism-- Cailil talk 14:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Enric, could you please make sure that you are not developing a sense of ownership concerning the homeopathy talk page? [24] The comment you tried to hide was definitely not trolling, and much less is the anonymous editor (who apparently has a static IP address) a troll. If we go by your standard, a lot of people will no longer be able to contribute, or will be censored if they do. If we go by your standard, your suggestion to Colonel Warden that WP:V must be followed on talk pages was an obvious case of trolling because it made no sense whatsoever and you have been long enough with the project to know this. If making up rules in order to lecture other editors isn't trolling, then I don't know what is. [25] Do you think it would have been a sensible action for me or Colonel Warden to strike your comment, with an edit comment referring to you as a troll? Don't you think that would have been a case of assuming bad faith, and very unconstructive? -- Hans Adler ( talk) 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It is greatly appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanrenewal ( talk • contribs) 03:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Enric I seemed to have missed the window for comment on RV. ( olive ( talk) 18:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC))
Hi, I was just wondering why you removed (by UNDO) two images from this page. Thanks! Qqqqqq ( talk) 20:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to contact me directly if you want to discuss the best way to improve the Kodiak bear page.
larry.vandaele@alaska.gov aka Taquka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquka ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added this, so you might consider reducing some of the coverage of that particular event in your ArbCom evidence, particularly if you're worried about the size of your statement. — Scien tizzle 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that in your comments in this deletion review discussion you wrote "The AfD was a joke with a lot of delete votes that should have been ignored". Did you mean to say "a lot of keep votes that should have been ignored"? I assume so since your vote was "overturn, delete" but it still looks a bit confusing. Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 13:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
What I removed was the infobox and reworded the "generally considered pseudoscience" statement. I don't believe there's anything wrong with the category link because there's quite a few people who feel the topic is pseudoscience, it's reliably sourced as a notable view, and Wikipedia articles can have more than one category associated with them. There's a difference between that and saying it's generally considered pseudoscience, especially when the US Government didn't feel that way when they were doing their research, nor stated anything like that after the research concluded. The infobox brands the topic as such, which is inappropriate in this particular case. WP:PSCI makes distinctions on what should be generally considered pseudoscience and gives an example of astrology, something the US Government (to my knowledge) never spent $20 mil pursuing. For example they never considered pursuing astrology as a means for predicting military conflicts or something like that. They did, however, see remote viewing research as something worth sinking money into. There's a separation of issues here. One one hand, the research concluded that it's of no value to the intelligence community. It's a waste of time and money. On the other hand is the question of whether coming to that conclusion can be done scientifically. Obviously they thought it could, which counterexamples the notion of it being generally considered pseudoscience.
Believing that remote viewing is supported by science is a pseudoscientific belief, of course, like believing astrology is supported by science would be. Astrology is also a system that people misrepresent as scientific because it looks scientific, asserting that tracking planets and stars and relating them to events in one's life is actually science. That's a misrepresentation of science, pseudoscience, and why Popper used it as an example when popularizing the term. Remote viewing isn't a system posing as science like astrology. It's just an idea, an idea that some (like the US Government) thought could be tested in a scientific way. The topic itself isn't pseudoscientific, nor the research. The topic doesn't misrepresent itself as science, and the research was conducted using scientific standards. It's the belief that remote viewing is either partially or completely supported by science that is pseudoscientific. Those beliefs could be generally considered pseudoscientific, but the US Government didn't see the topic itself as pseudoscience.
I don't know anything about water memory. If there's some misrepresentation of science (like astrology is when it's referred to as a scientific system) then it's pseudoscience. If it's not supported by science, but people claim it is, then those beliefs are pseudoscientific. I don't know what the issues are surrounding that topic, however. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 06:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Talk:Remote viewing#Pseudoscience infobox -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 19:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Enric regarding the long conversation you had last night with the tigerish IP User:128.111.95.38 this is a sock-puppet of the banned editor User:Anacapa who has used IPs from the university of Santa Barbara California as socks in his (it seems on-going) disruption of the project (if you want to know more about this guy's history of disruption and why this an obvious sock see this report). I've reported Anacapa/128.111.95.38 to a sysop familiar with the case and I just want to let you know because as per WP:BAN all comments by banned users will be removed - if this happens your good faith and very reasonable comments made in response to Anacapa might be removed as well-- Cailil talk 11:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You can also see from the block log of Ip 128.111.95.171 that this was an IP he had used previously as a sock-- Cailil talk 12:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been following your comments on the Clesh AfD, and I noticed that you make a claim about WP:CORP. Though I have no opinion on an article about Forbidden Technologies plc, for the purposes of accuracy, you should know that there are multiple - dozens by now - of independent articles about Forbidden Technologies, including many in the UK national press, such as the Telegraph (with photo), Independent (with photo), Financial Times and Sun (all well read UK newspapers), much in the trade press, and many mentions in the Financial press as you might expect from the World's best performing new flotation in 2000, the peak of the TMT bubble. This would seem to imply that Forbidden Technologies does meet the requirements of WP:CORP. Although tangential to the main debate, where you have presented other, coherent, arguments, you might be interested in accuracy in this regard. I am not commenting on the substantive matter in the AfD for reasons of Conflict of Interest. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 18:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Please, take into consideration that what looks trolling for you, for some other people makes 100% sense. On the other hand, your acts of vandalism by deleting content only show that you are trying to apply censorship. Wikipedia has to be free on censorship. Your attitude could be more neutral on this terrain and allow all points of view. It is a proven fact that calling a non-Greek Macedonian is an insult to all Greeks and should simply be removed. Why is that so hard to understand? And by the way, a proper explanation on why Slavs try to steal Greek history and territory is a must. Everyone has the right to know why they are doing that. Until 1950 their territory was called Vardarska Badovina. Do you have any clue? This is not about forums, this is about proving to the world the truth. Thank you for your cooperation and please, stop spreading hatred with your actions. -- 87.221.5.240 ( talk) 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of my first DYK Baseball uniform, which is currently on the mainpage?-- RyRy5 ( talk ♠ Review) 03:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
83d40m, please read Talk:Alexander_the_Great#Battle_with_Candace_of_Mero.C3.AB? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Moved here for further discussion if necessary... I will investigate the source you have noted and rewrite the section in my next long session to include your reference and its implication. Thanks, 83d40m ( talk) 11:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for tidying up the references section. It is appreciated. mk ( talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
OK.
Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by GK1973 ( talk • contribs) 02:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Please check. MBisanz talk 07:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 06:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Enric -- I substantially redacted my evidence at the Homeopathy case; new version here. I think we simply had a misunderstanding in an area where emotions can run high, and since you agreed that it probably wasn't a good idea to fork talk page discussion to the ArbCom case [27], it didn't seem necessary for me to belabor that. Best we let the ArbCom focus on more important things. No hard feelings. BTW, on a different subject, I completely agreed with your giving Vassyana that barnstar [28]. regards, Jim Butler ( t) 00:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I think it would pe possible to add an extra expression like "user", but it might just be easier to create an entirely new template. I'll look into it tomorrow for you and see if I can easily modify the template. I'm guessing adding a standard {{ifexp... would do the trick. The template would check to see if there is a |User= variable declared, and if so then the template would be reworded. I'm pretty tired right now but I can look into it tomorrow for you. Sound good? -- Tkgd2007 ( talk) 01:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It's okay. I commented there BTW.-- RyRy5 ( talk ♠ Review) 01:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello
I don't see why Madonna's upcoming tour page keeps getting deleted. This will be a large-scale world tour, and it's been confirmed by Madonna.com. All of Madonna's other tours have their own pages, so why not this one too? PatrickJ83 ( talk) 03:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This latest sockpuppet of User:Pinoybandwagon has been blocked. Unfortunately, months of vandalism/move mischief has to be reverted now. I'd like to ask your help in this project. -- Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Is gone. Thanks for finding those pages. MBisanz talk 09:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I left some additional comments on this article Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 12-- Kumioko ( talk) 17:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with my pictures. Sgt. bender ( talk) 01:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, uh, just to let you know this comment you made could not be farther from the truth, a check user has already been done and it has determined that his account is in no way compromised. Please read the arbcom case a bit closer, thanks. Tiptoety talk 02:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a longstanding convention of adding evidence of more recent disruption to now-dormant RFCs, I can point you to some examples if you doubt me. As for your suggestion that I "use a proper forum, aka, one that is active and where sanctions can be taken", that is the proper forum, Moulton has already been indefinitely banned here Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton#Enough Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive297#Moulton and the Arbcom has already rejected his request to be unblocked. What exactly do you suggest a "proper forum" is, and what do you think they need to do? He's banned, all that remains for us is to do is document any further disruption he causes from offsite, which I was doing before deleted it. I've restored it, and I suggest that you stop intervening in admin's dealing with disruptive editors until which time you have a better grasp of policy and convention. FeloniousMonk ( talk) 06:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 09:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to revert my question after you've answered it. 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 07:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You voted twice. 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 17:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Could I copy and paste your comments at this DRV on a deceptive source onto the second AFD, if not could you leave your comments at the AFD yourself.-- Otterathome ( talk) 20:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks like Colonel Warden continues his revenge campaign against me at the Administrators' noticeboard. I have mentioned your role in my reply there. -- Fyslee / talk 02:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:Dirty-pair-i-honestly-hate-you.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI ( talk) 10:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Eric, Why is it an non neutral thing to do?? I changed the word Albanian Rebels to Albanian Freedom fighters! how id that non neutral??? I mean the Original comment ALBANIAN REBELS in itself was originally Biased Racist and non neutral. And one more thing How I'm a supposed to source the change Rebel, to Freedom fighter ?? you make no sense I will change it again and again and if you delete me I'll make a new profile and if i have to I'll make 94,000,000 profiles because I will not stand for your Biased, Racist, xenophobic and rabid Anti Albanianism. I further have at least 20 other friends who will join me in deleting Biased and racist anti-Albanianism, It would be wise for you Eric to either reinstate the word Freedom Fighter or place both rebel or Freedom fighter as a neutral to both parties. A source for the word Freedom Fighters??? what a Joke!! Are you racist?? What did Albanians ever do to you? Words like rebel Imply terrorism, radicalism and so on and so forth. there fore I would prefer you change it to something neutral on both sides
I see that not only did you strip the ability to edit but you also replaced the word rebel with the evan more Offensive Radicals!! did some albanian kid bully you in school? robed your milk money or something? maybe stripped you of your girlfriend? or maybe all of the above, Because I don't understand why you would partake in such deliberate Racism, and Misinformation! why?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigwolfx ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Enric, I see that you are expanding the Henry Bauer stub, and I also note that the sources you are using are mostly self-published by Bauer or (for example, in the case of JPANDS) published in non-peer-reviewed, partisan publications. If you look into reliable sources on Henry Bauer such as news reports you will find that Bauer seems to have made the news for his opposition at Virginia Tech to measures meant to increase the representation of underrepresented minorities at the institution and for his adherence to fringe theories. If the article is not going to be deleted, it will need to address these realities. I just wanted to make sure you are aware of this, because from what I've read today, Bauer's controversial views suggest a further expansion of the article could become very uncomfortable, very quickly. Regards, Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 22:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Enric, I am somewhat disturbed by some of your recent comments, and I have probably responded too much in kind. I think we may both have violated the collegiality we should try to maintain here. Part of this might be a generational difference, and I will try to respect that. However, I would like to request that you please try to assume good faith, and I will do my best to do the same.
Second, I didn't want to correct you at the Henry H. Bauer page, since I recognize that English is your second language, but I thought I should tell you here, since I appreciate when people correct my mistakes in the other language I speak. A "seminar" in most of the world means an academic course (in the continental European tradition), but in the United States, where Dr. Bauer taught for most of his career and where he gave the talk in question, "seminar" means a talk. The speaker usually talks for almost an hour, then has a Q&A. That's it. You don't have to believe me; it's made clear in the media report that covered Bauer's talk. (Also, the phrase is "at a university" not "on a university".) I'm not trying to be snide here, I'm just correcting you as I would want from others.
Third, the "AIDSWiki" is not a reliable source and it does not belong on Wikipedia. There is no assurance that the "transcript" is correct or even real. As MastCell mentioned before, the AIDSWiki is a one-man labor of love that is utterly unreliable. And if the transcript is real, should we really link it? I know there are some people who feel it's just information and all information should be out there. But there's information and there are lies. I can't judge Henry Bauer's motivation, in fact I suspect he's just an ignorant contrarian. But I can judge his science. I have read his book, and it is based on simple misunderstandings. He is trying to be a statistician when he's not, and a biologist when he doesn't know much about biology. Intentional or not, his musings on AIDS are lies. The sad part is that many people take them for truth. It's understandable. When you are sick, you don't want to admit it. You don't want medicine. You want to think you will live forever. And when a big science professor and former dean comes along and tells you you're fine, you take his word and don't notice that he hasn't done any science for the past thirty years, is a member of what some people would call a right-wing hate group, has made strident comments about homosexuals in his memoirs, and is an authority, at most, on historical pseudoscience.
Have you known anyone who died in AIDS denial? I have. It makes me sad and mad. It reinforces my view that, in a few rare cases, we have not just a guideline, but a social obligation to uphold policies like WP:UNDUE. And that includes not making a puff piece out of a stub on an obscure fringe professor like Bauer. You're welcome to disagree with me and take the libertarian tack about freedom of speech and letting people decide what to do with their own lives. But I encourage you to at least think about this issue before adding more puffery to the Bauer article. Sorry to write a damn book here, feel free to delete if you don't want it. Thanks, Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw what you did with with {{ Anonymous and the Internet}}. Albeit I think a bit more of why those things are all interlinked w/ each other could be added to the main article at Anonymous (group). Nice work, Cirt ( talk) 05:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well this type of interlinking/integration etc. along a topic or theme should hopefully foster more collaboration among editors of those various articles and perhaps even speed up their overall improvement along quality status. So yea, nice idea, and nice job w/ creating it and taking initiative. Cirt ( talk) 06:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed your good work cleaning up unfortunate redirects. I hope you don't mind, but I'd like you to consider the redirect Co-X_Entertainment. Searching the target page for "Co-X" shows only an extremely brief reference. That reference is a link back to the original redirect.
I have no idea if this is brilliant forward planning for when the redirect is turned into a full page, or whether it should be cleaned up. I'm hoping you have time to deal with it (or take a lot longer to explain it to me, and I'll do it). -- Johnuniq ( talk) 10:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Template:Anonymous and the Internet has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Wafulz ( talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Vassyana#User:QuackGuru. Vassyana ( talk) 21:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Enric, you showed much interest on improving the article of the CoA of Catalonia from what i've been able to read. I'm willing to read your point and reasoning about the edits made in last days. About you asking for a pair of days... Take your time buddy, wiki is not everything in life! ;) -- MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 07:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you. Wikipedia's policy against essays and so forth on userspace; do you think it would cover User:Axlrose365? it IS a conspiracy theory, but it can simply be taken as his opinion, however much of a nutjob it makes him sound like. Thanks for your time!. Ironho lds 09:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
A whole barn full of stars! |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
...that's what they should give to users who can change their mind, as you did here. Truly, the rarest quality among Wikipedians. Congratulations! Niko Silver 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC) |
Greetings from Indonesia! Thank you for informing us about that. We will tell the user that what he is doing is inappropriate. dragunova discuss 17:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
they can't place their tag on every article on which they don't agree with. additonally they don't adher WP:NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.73.54 ( talk) 18:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we just edit-conflicted in the sorting. Give me 10 minutes and I'll merge your changes in. Sorry. Rossami (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your long, hard work on this massive project. In addition to checking out about 80-85% of your list, I've been weeding out categories of his creation and seeing if I can get them speedied (so far, I managed to get rid of about 20 cats, with about another 10 in the pipes). One thing that I've noticed was a very heavy reliance on {{DEFAULTCAT}} so that a one- or two-paragraph article could have as many as 20 categories(!). B.Wind ( talk) 08:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Semi'd Template:Anonymous and the Internet as high risk, Its only a few days old and already getting hit. Cheers-- Hu12 ( talk) 01:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
i want you to appologize for your unjustified accusation of "edit warring". if you have problems with me i suggest you discuss your "problems" directly with me instead of makeing false accusation against me just to get my differing opinion out of wikipedia SomeUsr| Talk| Contribs 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Enric, this user is higly disruptive and unwilling to cooperate in the good path in order to improve the articles. This user has been warned a number of times (even by admins) and keeps committing the same faults in a a harder way each time.
After what I've read in your links in Sclua's talk-page about him calling us "Spanish fascists", his xenophobic comments about chilean and/or southamerican people, his edit warring and personal attacks, I decided to finally report this user to an Arbitration Committee.
Do you wish to back me in this? -- MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 07:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome - glad it worked. There are a *lot* of things in the gadgets section of preferences now. Graham 87 00:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
SA is currently edit warring highly contentious material into Remote viewing (along with an admin who probably has no idea what's what). Your help would be appreciated. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 06:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Welcome!
Hello, Enric Naval, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
I see you've been here for a long time as a user, but I thought you might like a welcome anyway! Inner Earth 22:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
House of Aragon/Barcelona
Talk:House_of_Barcelona#Barcelona.2FAragon.2C_whatever
Thank you! I will use these standards from now on. I appreciate that! -- Polylerus ( talk) 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --
SineBot (
talk)
09:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No worries, Enric. You didn't waste my time. I'm just sick and tired of American grammar and spelling being used concerning European affairs - again not your fault. Cheerio!
I'll have to go through the article again - don't worry! The only one I noticed was "onward" when it should be "onwards" in English. I'll skim through it again - there weren't that many to begin with.
Hey, there! Thanks for your note.
I do remember nominating this article for speedy deletion but I'm not an administrator so it must have been someone else that deleted it. Since the article was speedy deleted, the creating editor is not restricted in recreating the article the same way he/she would have been if it was deleted through an AfD discussion. If you feel like the article shouldn't be included in Wikipedia, you can nominate it for
AfD and I will be sure to stop by the discussion and lend my opinion.
Thanks again for contacting me.
Peace!
SWik78 (
talk)
13:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your notice on Randy Blackamoor's page. My issue with him is he consistently ignores WP:CIVIL [1] and doesn't respond to feedback, except for short periods of time. I have even recommend that he get mentored. [2]
Just checked out your reasoning... quite correct in what you say now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.44.177 ( talk) 13:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey,
I'm still new to wikipedia, and I responded back to your comments on my talk page. Is that correct protocol?
Mpalmer22 ( talk) 14:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I'm still new and still trying to figure out how Wikipedia works, since it seems different from most other things I've worked with. You've raised a lot of valid points. I don't really have any problems with what you said, I guess I'm just trying to figure out how best to contribute. I do work and feel that his content is going to be useful and helpful, but I'm not sure how it would be best used without any conflicts of interest or going beyond my understanding. Any ideas? Thanks for the help.
Mpalmer22 ( talk) 14:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Enric Naval. I've repaired the talk page. The article Generation Z has actually been nominated twice for deletion. The first nomination, from 2006, located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Z was in fact a delete result. I had nothing to do with that discussion or result. The second nomination, the one that I closed in 2008, was a keep result, located here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Z (2nd nomination). I've fixed the talk page to reflect both discussions, located here. I wouldn't recommend a new deletion discussion as the last one only closed about a month ago. If you disagree with the closing of the discussion and feel that the discussion as it happened and containing what it contains should have led to deletion instead of being kept, you can list it at Deletion Review. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 07:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of UC-26C, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-26.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 00:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not currently prodded. You did a good job of providing references, but the tone is still too advocatory/promotional, with a side of "here's how it works." Generally, "here's how it works" is not a good thing to see in an encyclopedia article, for tonal reasons if nothing else. It smacks a little of the newspaper article or even press release. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 22:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Re your query: no, it actually isn't from the book you posted, but was worked up from a 17thC copperplate image on the Kabbalah page. It does, I agree, look rather like the one you put up though, so if it has to come off, then it comes off. All that work in paintbox/PaintShopPro for nowt! :( abafied (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
"If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice." I'm not sure I follow what you mean when you say the template says it shouldn't be removed? Perhaps you think I created this article? I did not. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know that was a tag for speedy deletion. Thanks. BTW, do you think my signature is too big-- RyRy5 talk 22:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Please, leave the sister cities alone, Ill try to find some information. Just keep them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright, Ill make sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Good job finding my Secret Page. By the way, what name was it. Was it hamhampopo. That was the only strange name I could remember.-- RyRy5 talk 17:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This is my own program for my adoptees. I'm not trying to create a new program that way. In My program I, give my adoptees tests to complete. It helps them learn more about wikipedia. If they do well, I then ask them to graduate. This is OK, right.-- RyRy5 talk 19:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Last year I made a gif for free use on Wikipedia, from a photo of Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi by the photographer, Mayotte Magnus. She had given her permission for the image to be used on WP, provided the photo itself was credited to her on the Image Page. I didn't understand the WP copyright process, couldn't find or fill in the right forms and it was deleted. I'd like to re-upload it, if that's still possible, but would need help with the form-filling/finding. Can you help, please?
I've also since found out that the same photo has been used by other organisations on the internet. abafied ( talk) 14:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added the fair use summary, but are you saying that, in addition, I need both a free-use license and a fair-use license, or am I being totally stupid? abafied ( talk) 15:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help, again, enric. It's appreciated. abafied ( talk) 16:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep them there for a while, I will find some information. But do not delete them yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Robert Zeltser ( talk • contribs) 15:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Just write citation needed next to the ones I wrote. Then I will find some information. But do not delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Robert Zeltser ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I guess my I didn't know that. Sorry.-- RyRy5 talk 20:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No. This is not my image. I have uploaded an image which was a photo of Retiro, in Buenos Aires. This is the 9 de Julio Avenue. You will see that the title is incorrect.
-- Gonza777 ( talk) 00:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I'm sorry if I came off as harsh or mean in that discussion. I was thinking about it just now, and realized that I wasn't very considerate in that TfD. You're right to bring your concerns to TfD, and I do understand the argument about discouraging the use. -- Ned Scott 03:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted this one in the past as non-notable, and now the guy has revived it. He has been upfront in his efforts to make his case, so I feel ethically bound not to speedy or even prod the article; but do you feel he's made even a remote case for passing WP:COMPANY? Frankly, I don't. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
When I add each one, I will try to get source for it. I will do my job best.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Robert Zeltser ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I already archive everything over 20 days; 9 threads this morning alone. -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. Actually I was holding back. That wasn't Rich.lewis? (e.g. "I still perosonally [sic] think..." Did he say something earlier? Or is it a joke?) Thanks for the reminder all the same. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Enric. My dad is not going to use his account anymore. Also, it said on your reminders to check new pages often. Would you like the New Pages Patroller Userbox? It is exactly like your recent changes userbox except that it is instead "new pages".-- RyRy5 talk 18:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Per this edit, I'll just intrude here for a moment to give you some help. First, never ever ever, unless it's something dramatic, refactor someone else's post to the talk page, especially the postings of a very experienced editor. You might want to check out WP:TALK for some helpful guidance. In addition, if there are too many colons, you can reduce indent, especially if you're starting a new thought. Some people are creative, I just type <RI> meaning "reduce indent". It's always good form to state that you're reducing the indent. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll find source on them then.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 07:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar! There were a couple more articles that I had hoped to cite last night. I'll try and do it soon. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope an admin gets to it soon. I wonder how Aimar chose you. Enigma message 14:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I joined it. I would also like you to join this if you can:
-- RyRy5 talk 00:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to argue with me on my talk page in reasonably polite language as much as you choose. You are not welcome to use it as springboard for attacks on other editors. Comments such as "Right now I could be way harsher to you and get away with it." no matter whom they may be addressed to, are not appropriate. In fact, it seems imprudent language, to say the least, in any situation, on or off wikipedia To be fair to others, I am deleting your last few comments. Please dont take it personally, but they don't belong there. DGG ( talk) 01:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Go to my user talk.
Bf2 ( talk) 14:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Enric Naval/Archive 1! I'm currently planning the launch of the WikiProject Beijing, depending on if enough other editors would be interested in such a project. I saw you have edited the main Beijing page recently and therefor might be interested. If you are, please sign: User:Poeloq/WikiProject_Beijing. As I am posting this to quite a few editors, I am not watching your page and would ask you to reply with any comment or questions on my talk page. Cheers, Poeloq ( talk) 20:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL, it was a joke. Today is April Fools Day! :) Apologies for any confusion though. :) K. Lásztocska talk 23:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
If what I'm doing makes me look bad, then let it be so. I feel very strongly about this topic, and I think that you people who want to delete many of the secret pages are, in a sense, coercing others by forcing them to delete these. I admit, some of these are very irritating, but some others aren't. Regarding my edit summary, I'm not really seeing where you're trying to go with this. Are you saying that I am not using Wikipedia how it's supposed to be because I tend to edit my userspace a lot and other non-articles, i.e. templates? Are you saying that each Wikipedian is supposed to have only one or two edits per page? Please clarify this, because I feel right now like you're trying to criticize me for so many things, but I'm not really sure what you're trying to do by criticizing me. I just remembered... please put your criticisms on my editor review page. I'm apologize if this is too long. –The Obento Musubi ( Contributions) 17:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 20:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I sometimes take things the wrong way. If my reply sounded at all sarcastic or attacking, I apologize; I was just sort of irritated this morning. Sorry! It's not your fault at all. –The Obento Musubi ( Contributions) 22:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
No no: this is how you do it =P Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 17:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw this comment, and I didn't want to discuss on Ldemery's page, since he's a bit odd to me. I think that many of us prefer anonymity, for whatever reason. There are individuals who have been attacked for posts here. There was a professor of Medicine in Toronto, who, as a result of his edits to the Abortion article, was outed and attacked. I think they even accused him of pedophilia or something as repulsive. I intentionally do not edit in any article with which I have a professional interest, just so I do not have to claim to be an "expert", and therefore, do not have to make an Essjay mistake. So, I would never, under any circumstance, agree to publish anything about me. And Ldemery's requests are ridiculous at any rate. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not like the naked accusations you are making against User:DanaUllman. [5] Please include evidence in the form of diffs to substantiate what you say; otherwise, you may find yourself blocked for violations of civility and assume good faith. Jehochman Talk 21:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 20:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Updated a bit. Here's what I think is the best new section: [6] Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
He created yet another new sockpuppet again. ( User:Radiospeed) What shall we do? - Danngarcia ( talk) 16:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with my rational, the issue of independence in 1700's is disputed, yet presented as a fact, and large portions of pre-Islamic history have been neglected or suppressed while the minor events in post-Islamic history (ie Saudi tribal incursions) have been given undo weight. Please do not remove the tag, I am merely asking third-party users who are interested or familiar with the topic, yet not associated with the topic, to review it for neutrality, as most of the editors who have constructed the section in its current form such as User:Arabbi, User:Slackerlawstudent and User:Dilmun , appear to be from from an Arab background (either Saudi Arabia or Bahrain). Please do not remove the tag. -- -- 07fan ( talk) 17:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Enric, thanks v. much for your intervention and taking the time to review the POV tags on the Bahrain and History of Bahrain pages. I think the interpretation is the right one, given that the justification on the Talk:Bahrain page used for placing the tags provides nothing specific that can be refuted and there's no justification at all on the Talk:History of Bahrain page.
On the Talk:Bahrain page, User:07fan has been invited to amend the page to include the information he wants as per wikipedia's POV policies, but hasn't done so. With 07fan's reverts of the deletion of the tags we're back to the same situation, whereby User:07fan's providing nothing specific with sources that can be responded to yet insists on leaving the tag there.
If this is acceptable under wikipedia policy, then this again raises my original point at the start of this subsection: does the policy need to be tightened up on POV tagging?
Thanks,
Dilmun ( talk) 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your false accusation that "07fan is clearly not abiding by this policy on Bahrain page, since he has engaged on drive-by tagging of other tags [7], has not made any other edits to the article except for tagging (which means that he didn't try to mend the article before or after tagging)"
Since when an editor needs to ask for permission to place a fact tag in front of an obvious false claim that English is the official language of Bahrain? The fact that you're using that as an example that I engaged in "drive-by tagging": shows your total lack of knowledge of the issue at hand, and a total disregard for WP:AGF and associated polices. I invite you to take back your false accusations, and assume good faith. Also, "POV-check-secton" is the right tag, not "POV-section", unless you're disputing the section in question, which I doubt, given your unfamiliarity with the topic. -- 07fan ( talk) 22:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
By – Mattisse Talk, more than an hour after you warned him ... He is still going on about Notability Redthoreau ( talk TR 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Enric,
Regarding your solution to the POV tag on the Bahrain page you proposed on 6 April, you didn't go forward with it because the other two editors came to an agreement to go for RfC, with 07fan stating that he was going to file a request the following day. Its now over two days and nothing's happened. Therefore, I think we should go with your proposal, which is most certainly in line with wikipedia's guidelines on tagging:
Three days starting from today seems reasonable for those who want to keep the tag to provide concrete information. Otherwise the tag goes.
Dilmun ( talk) 23:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Enric, given wikipedia's policy above, is there any onus on me not to put wikipedia's rules on tagging into place and, as you proposed before, give 07fan 3 days to come up with some concrete sources to substantiate his objections before deleting the tag? I wasn't a party to the agreement to go to RFC, but the RFC 07fan's raised on the page doesn't relate to the issue of the POV tag but to the page's content - even though the placing of the tag was the issue of debate when the two users agreed to go for RfC. I'm not saying an RFC can't take place & I'd welcome it, but an RFC doesn't require a section tag; browsing through the pages listed on the RFC page and few of them have POV tags on the page.
Furthermore, 07fan has stated that the tag can only be removed when the page has been reviewed by "third-party users who are familiar with the topic". How this is defined and work in practice is unknown, and do you know of anything within wikipedia's policies that could support such an approach?
Dilmun ( talk) 09:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: even if looks like a content dispute, we are still using the POV tag because the editor disputing the section claims that the lack of information is due to a POV. (Then again. I compel 07fan to find sources for the missing information and post them on the talk page, so the info can be added to the article). -- Enric Naval ( talk) 10:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
:D
I think that you need to look at my comments on 07fan talk page
[8] --
Enric Naval (
talk)
13:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Refering to your message: About this edit [1], the prefered domain by the city council is ".cat" even if examination of it would indicate that it's just a redirection to ".es". From a neutral point of view of wikipedia, none of them is preferable to the other one, and there are political reasons for Barcelona prefering .cat and many of the internal links on their website point to bcn.cat even if you enter thought bcn.es, so let's use .cat and leave it at that --Enric Naval (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
well the use of both .cat and .es at the same time is as you said for political reason, so then, why take sides? bcn.cat probably just used to apeace the nationalists, but the real domain is .es which points to the country where Barcelona is. At any rate both should be present. Besides, some other wikipedia languages use .es (ie Galego and Spanish). If there are two domains, let's include both, there are two domains for a reason
Well, ERC, PSC and ICV were voted by the people, but from that you can't infer that people elected them to form a coalition. The Govern had to mainly apease ERC I guess as you say, which is a party centred on identity and ethnic politics... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahuelmarisi ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I appreciate your work on recognising and banning vandals on the Tanoli page. The page has improved and is now in very good state. I want to know how the stubs regarding 'factual accuracy' and 'tone' of the article can be removed as these are no longer necessary there. take care Wikitanoli ( talk) 02:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for you consideration and removal of those stubs, I will footnote refrences and further improve the quality of the article. Cheers! Wikitanoli ( talk) 17:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 15:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, it seems that you believe that if you throw enough mud at the walls that some of it will stick (there are too many instances to reference here, but you certainly know about which I am referring). I sincerely hope that you will now focus on content issues rather than attacking the messenger. The fact that I remain civil and that I work to provide RS, notable, secondary references, and NPOV encyclopedic information has seemed to inflame you. It is a tad ironic that you have asked me to take a break, when it seems that you are spending a lot more time and energy evaluating me and the people who appreciate me than I spend on wikipedia in entirety. I hope that you will show good faith by working harder towards moving to consensus rather than towards attacking me. Can't we get along? If not, please consider taking your own advice and take a wiki-break or focus your editing on other subjects to which you are less emotionally connected. Let's move into a different gear. DanaUllman Talk 04:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, but I'm afraid I'm not responsible for the edits outlined in this message:
Please stop. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to
User:Colchicum, you will be
blocked from editing. Also, unexplained removal of text on
Economy_of_Canada, Spanish Inquisition
[17], George Shrinks
[18], etc --
Enric Naval (
talk)
15:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I recall that I reverted the George Shrinks vandalism edit. I think the user you should be directing this message to is actually User talk:64.141.49.2.
24.84.5.55 ( talk) 05:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 09:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Uhm... I don't want to be to conclude it too soon but I think he created another sockpuppet ( User:Martindanza). Check out his recent contributions. Thanks! - Danngarcia ( talk) 15:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I added the attributions and did a little cleanup. Critic-at-Arms ( talk) 16:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, not needed, but thanks for the thoughful notice regarding it. Best wishes for a good weekend. - House of Scandal ( talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Good work on cleaning this stuff up. Viriditas ( talk) 09:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
No point in voicing on the AFD. NPOV is an editorial problem. Sceptre ( talk) 16:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm waiting for you to explain what's the problem with my version of Coat of arms of Catalonia. -- Jotamar ( talk) 14:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad that you have taken the time to revise the recent versions in Coat of arms of Catalonia, and it's obvious that you know Wikipedia policies very well. Anyway, I think you haven't reached to the root of the problem yet:
Ditto
Anyway, thanks for the advice. I won't be becoming an admin until maybe in at least 6-8 months.
Well, I've been doing good. I redesigned my userpage if you haven't notice, but let's get to the important parts. I've been really active, editing articles. I'm also in the verge of upgrading 2 articles for WP:GA.
How about you?-- RyRy5 ( talk) 01:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I was reading through your evidence here, and it seems that your provided diff for the claim "Claiming effects similar to cold fusion" doesn't really support it. I can see Dana talking about atomic bombs here, but this is far removed from cold fusion. Did you perhaps link the wrong diff by mistake? -- Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 04:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The homeopathy article and related pages are on article probation, due to past editing problems. Please read the terms at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation and be sure to comply.
Hello Enric, after your recent contribution here I realised that you haven't been formally notified yet, although obviously you already know about it. Please be aware that you are responsible for what you propose, even when OffTheFence has proposed it before you. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think that the list can be helpful someway but we can't check whether if some of the stations are real since it only shows the number of stations in every region in the Philippines. Also Pinoybandwagon and his sockpuppets created radio nav templates by province and/or by city. I'll also try to find a more detailed list so that we can verify those articles if they are real or not.
I wish that NTC will create an updated list like this... - Danngarcia ( talk) 13:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
(moved here from User talk:Doug for unified discussion)
What template did you use for the exclamation mark
here? I use {{
clerknote}}
, but it generates the text "Clerk note:" and I think that it's not totally appropiate for a non-clerk like me to use it, and I would like to use the same template as you, but I don't know its name --
Enric Naval (
talk)
20:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for moving the lead sandbox thing out of 'mainspace' - it's clearly a better fit where you've put it, and I hope it can achieve something useful in its new home - so thanks for that! cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 00:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Any comments and/or opinions on it?-- RyRy5 ( talk) 02:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is the the link to the discussion goes back to the 2006 discussion. I was not aware that the article was AfD, but I can tell that the link is incorrect. Mynameisnotpj ( talk) 03:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you again for your offer to provide "concrete evidence". I went through the links you provided and analysed them in the "Notes" subsection on my talk page. If you think I've missed anything, I would appreciate it if you would take the time to find the diffs. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 11:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification. Perhaps I am misreading, but I think you are misrepresenting a number of facts in the section you added regarding me.
You wrote On the same section User:Anthon01 tells Jim that he was topic banned also for removing the category [37], however, on the ban notification on his talk page we can see that he was actually banned for stonewalling, and that at the time of his comment on 3 February he had been already warned for socking to avoid the ban.
1) I never removed the category. I only made a suggestion and was banned for making the suggestion. Additionally, a section in RSN on the matter where 15 editors weighed in, 10 of 15 editors agreed that the standard for pseudoscience was not met by the available references. In that section the 'best of the best' reference was rejected as proof of homeopathy as pseudoscience. [ [20]] Here is the result of that tally abbreviated. [21]
2) At the time of my comment I was not guilty of "socking to avoid the ban." FT2 wrote
“ | "He also emails that his computer being logged out, he wasn't aware of east718's message at the time of his 2nd post as an IP, so he posted as an IP, then realized it was logged out, then saw the message. Again no reason I can see to not give this good faith. ... As a result I'm inclined to give good faith that there was not a deliberate intent to circumvent scrutiny, but that not remembering to log in has had that effect and caused difficulties. Hopefully that's behind
now."[ [22]] |
” |
I assert that this misrepresenting of accusations constitute victimism, and I use Anthon01's comment to show how usual and widespread it is even between editors that claim victimism. I assert that those editors really believe that they are victims of bias and that they are not lying consciounsly. They actually believe that they are not misrepresenting anything, even when pointed at solid evidence, and this causes problems with getting them to recognize that they ever breached a policy even in the most obvious of cases.
3) You may want to change this. Anthon01 ( talk) 00:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I have responded to your statements here. [23] Anthon01 ( talk) 01:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You wrote:
On the same section User:Anthon01 tells Jim that he was topic banned also for removing the category for saying that the category should be removed [44], however, on the ban notification on his talk page we can see that he was actually banned for stonewalling, Anthon01 contested the stonewalling claims saying that no diff was provided on MastCell page,on ANI again on ANI, it's on this last ANI thread where Jehochaman finally tells him "My impression is that you are tendentiously pushing a point of view, using whatever measures you can to try to get your way and frustrate the editors who oppose you. Look at your own contribution history. Virtually every edit you make related to homeopathy fits into that pattern. I think East718 can provide specific diffs to support their actions ..."
You are making a diffless claims. If you really want to get you point across you should provide the proof necessary in the form of diffs. Otherwise all you have is rumors.(he said, she said) I was banned soon after posting the "remove the categoties" comment. East718 never provided any diffs and neither did Jehochaman. Jehochaman says "East718 can provide specific diffs," but East718 never presented any diffs.
User:Fyslee also told Anthon01 about disruption User_talk:Fyslee#H before the topic ban, and, from his comments to Anthon01 about the topic ban, does not disagree with the east718's reasons."
The link you provided on "Anthon01 about the topic ban" are not comments made to me. east718 never provided and diffs, just a baseless claim. I asked him 3 times to provide them. He disappeared. You supporting evidence is shoddy. If you really are serious about your RFa and want to be taken seriously, then you need to prove your POV with diffs. Anthon01 ( talk) 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
At least in my regard, you are wasting your time. You think because Fyslee said the ban was justified that that proves it? Fyslee and I are often on the oppositte ends of content. Have you been here long? Arb isn't going to make a decision without diffs. If you want to prove stonewalling then you have to provide diffs, not someone else's diffless claims. Get the diffs that prove it. Anthon01 ( talk) 19:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
And why do I care about someone suggesting you become or thinking you're an admin? Anthon01 ( talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
My mistake. I meant RFAR. Anthon01 ( talk) 22:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you Vanished user? Anthon01 ( talk) 22:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Leave my page alone. Anthon01 ( talk) 14:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
His name is not on my page. Adam is a common name. Anthon01 ( talk) 15:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to say thanks so, um... thanks! Oh yes, Justin Masterson made his Major League Baseball debut yesterday. So I can probably find some more info about him.-- RyRy5 ( talk) 14:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 16:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into that IP's report and for highlighting the dead link on Feminism-- Cailil talk 14:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Enric, could you please make sure that you are not developing a sense of ownership concerning the homeopathy talk page? [24] The comment you tried to hide was definitely not trolling, and much less is the anonymous editor (who apparently has a static IP address) a troll. If we go by your standard, a lot of people will no longer be able to contribute, or will be censored if they do. If we go by your standard, your suggestion to Colonel Warden that WP:V must be followed on talk pages was an obvious case of trolling because it made no sense whatsoever and you have been long enough with the project to know this. If making up rules in order to lecture other editors isn't trolling, then I don't know what is. [25] Do you think it would have been a sensible action for me or Colonel Warden to strike your comment, with an edit comment referring to you as a troll? Don't you think that would have been a case of assuming bad faith, and very unconstructive? -- Hans Adler ( talk) 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It is greatly appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanrenewal ( talk • contribs) 03:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Enric I seemed to have missed the window for comment on RV. ( olive ( talk) 18:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC))
Hi, I was just wondering why you removed (by UNDO) two images from this page. Thanks! Qqqqqq ( talk) 20:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to contact me directly if you want to discuss the best way to improve the Kodiak bear page.
larry.vandaele@alaska.gov aka Taquka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquka ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added this, so you might consider reducing some of the coverage of that particular event in your ArbCom evidence, particularly if you're worried about the size of your statement. — Scien tizzle 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that in your comments in this deletion review discussion you wrote "The AfD was a joke with a lot of delete votes that should have been ignored". Did you mean to say "a lot of keep votes that should have been ignored"? I assume so since your vote was "overturn, delete" but it still looks a bit confusing. Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 13:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
What I removed was the infobox and reworded the "generally considered pseudoscience" statement. I don't believe there's anything wrong with the category link because there's quite a few people who feel the topic is pseudoscience, it's reliably sourced as a notable view, and Wikipedia articles can have more than one category associated with them. There's a difference between that and saying it's generally considered pseudoscience, especially when the US Government didn't feel that way when they were doing their research, nor stated anything like that after the research concluded. The infobox brands the topic as such, which is inappropriate in this particular case. WP:PSCI makes distinctions on what should be generally considered pseudoscience and gives an example of astrology, something the US Government (to my knowledge) never spent $20 mil pursuing. For example they never considered pursuing astrology as a means for predicting military conflicts or something like that. They did, however, see remote viewing research as something worth sinking money into. There's a separation of issues here. One one hand, the research concluded that it's of no value to the intelligence community. It's a waste of time and money. On the other hand is the question of whether coming to that conclusion can be done scientifically. Obviously they thought it could, which counterexamples the notion of it being generally considered pseudoscience.
Believing that remote viewing is supported by science is a pseudoscientific belief, of course, like believing astrology is supported by science would be. Astrology is also a system that people misrepresent as scientific because it looks scientific, asserting that tracking planets and stars and relating them to events in one's life is actually science. That's a misrepresentation of science, pseudoscience, and why Popper used it as an example when popularizing the term. Remote viewing isn't a system posing as science like astrology. It's just an idea, an idea that some (like the US Government) thought could be tested in a scientific way. The topic itself isn't pseudoscientific, nor the research. The topic doesn't misrepresent itself as science, and the research was conducted using scientific standards. It's the belief that remote viewing is either partially or completely supported by science that is pseudoscientific. Those beliefs could be generally considered pseudoscientific, but the US Government didn't see the topic itself as pseudoscience.
I don't know anything about water memory. If there's some misrepresentation of science (like astrology is when it's referred to as a scientific system) then it's pseudoscience. If it's not supported by science, but people claim it is, then those beliefs are pseudoscientific. I don't know what the issues are surrounding that topic, however. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 06:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Talk:Remote viewing#Pseudoscience infobox -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 19:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Enric regarding the long conversation you had last night with the tigerish IP User:128.111.95.38 this is a sock-puppet of the banned editor User:Anacapa who has used IPs from the university of Santa Barbara California as socks in his (it seems on-going) disruption of the project (if you want to know more about this guy's history of disruption and why this an obvious sock see this report). I've reported Anacapa/128.111.95.38 to a sysop familiar with the case and I just want to let you know because as per WP:BAN all comments by banned users will be removed - if this happens your good faith and very reasonable comments made in response to Anacapa might be removed as well-- Cailil talk 11:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You can also see from the block log of Ip 128.111.95.171 that this was an IP he had used previously as a sock-- Cailil talk 12:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been following your comments on the Clesh AfD, and I noticed that you make a claim about WP:CORP. Though I have no opinion on an article about Forbidden Technologies plc, for the purposes of accuracy, you should know that there are multiple - dozens by now - of independent articles about Forbidden Technologies, including many in the UK national press, such as the Telegraph (with photo), Independent (with photo), Financial Times and Sun (all well read UK newspapers), much in the trade press, and many mentions in the Financial press as you might expect from the World's best performing new flotation in 2000, the peak of the TMT bubble. This would seem to imply that Forbidden Technologies does meet the requirements of WP:CORP. Although tangential to the main debate, where you have presented other, coherent, arguments, you might be interested in accuracy in this regard. I am not commenting on the substantive matter in the AfD for reasons of Conflict of Interest. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 18:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Please, take into consideration that what looks trolling for you, for some other people makes 100% sense. On the other hand, your acts of vandalism by deleting content only show that you are trying to apply censorship. Wikipedia has to be free on censorship. Your attitude could be more neutral on this terrain and allow all points of view. It is a proven fact that calling a non-Greek Macedonian is an insult to all Greeks and should simply be removed. Why is that so hard to understand? And by the way, a proper explanation on why Slavs try to steal Greek history and territory is a must. Everyone has the right to know why they are doing that. Until 1950 their territory was called Vardarska Badovina. Do you have any clue? This is not about forums, this is about proving to the world the truth. Thank you for your cooperation and please, stop spreading hatred with your actions. -- 87.221.5.240 ( talk) 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of my first DYK Baseball uniform, which is currently on the mainpage?-- RyRy5 ( talk ♠ Review) 03:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
83d40m, please read Talk:Alexander_the_Great#Battle_with_Candace_of_Mero.C3.AB? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Moved here for further discussion if necessary... I will investigate the source you have noted and rewrite the section in my next long session to include your reference and its implication. Thanks, 83d40m ( talk) 11:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for tidying up the references section. It is appreciated. mk ( talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
OK.
Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by GK1973 ( talk • contribs) 02:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Please check. MBisanz talk 07:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 06:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Enric -- I substantially redacted my evidence at the Homeopathy case; new version here. I think we simply had a misunderstanding in an area where emotions can run high, and since you agreed that it probably wasn't a good idea to fork talk page discussion to the ArbCom case [27], it didn't seem necessary for me to belabor that. Best we let the ArbCom focus on more important things. No hard feelings. BTW, on a different subject, I completely agreed with your giving Vassyana that barnstar [28]. regards, Jim Butler ( t) 00:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I think it would pe possible to add an extra expression like "user", but it might just be easier to create an entirely new template. I'll look into it tomorrow for you and see if I can easily modify the template. I'm guessing adding a standard {{ifexp... would do the trick. The template would check to see if there is a |User= variable declared, and if so then the template would be reworded. I'm pretty tired right now but I can look into it tomorrow for you. Sound good? -- Tkgd2007 ( talk) 01:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It's okay. I commented there BTW.-- RyRy5 ( talk ♠ Review) 01:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello
I don't see why Madonna's upcoming tour page keeps getting deleted. This will be a large-scale world tour, and it's been confirmed by Madonna.com. All of Madonna's other tours have their own pages, so why not this one too? PatrickJ83 ( talk) 03:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This latest sockpuppet of User:Pinoybandwagon has been blocked. Unfortunately, months of vandalism/move mischief has to be reverted now. I'd like to ask your help in this project. -- Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Is gone. Thanks for finding those pages. MBisanz talk 09:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I left some additional comments on this article Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 12-- Kumioko ( talk) 17:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with my pictures. Sgt. bender ( talk) 01:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, uh, just to let you know this comment you made could not be farther from the truth, a check user has already been done and it has determined that his account is in no way compromised. Please read the arbcom case a bit closer, thanks. Tiptoety talk 02:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a longstanding convention of adding evidence of more recent disruption to now-dormant RFCs, I can point you to some examples if you doubt me. As for your suggestion that I "use a proper forum, aka, one that is active and where sanctions can be taken", that is the proper forum, Moulton has already been indefinitely banned here Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton#Enough Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive297#Moulton and the Arbcom has already rejected his request to be unblocked. What exactly do you suggest a "proper forum" is, and what do you think they need to do? He's banned, all that remains for us is to do is document any further disruption he causes from offsite, which I was doing before deleted it. I've restored it, and I suggest that you stop intervening in admin's dealing with disruptive editors until which time you have a better grasp of policy and convention. FeloniousMonk ( talk) 06:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 09:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to revert my question after you've answered it. 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 07:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You voted twice. 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 17:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Could I copy and paste your comments at this DRV on a deceptive source onto the second AFD, if not could you leave your comments at the AFD yourself.-- Otterathome ( talk) 20:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks like Colonel Warden continues his revenge campaign against me at the Administrators' noticeboard. I have mentioned your role in my reply there. -- Fyslee / talk 02:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:Dirty-pair-i-honestly-hate-you.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI ( talk) 10:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Eric, Why is it an non neutral thing to do?? I changed the word Albanian Rebels to Albanian Freedom fighters! how id that non neutral??? I mean the Original comment ALBANIAN REBELS in itself was originally Biased Racist and non neutral. And one more thing How I'm a supposed to source the change Rebel, to Freedom fighter ?? you make no sense I will change it again and again and if you delete me I'll make a new profile and if i have to I'll make 94,000,000 profiles because I will not stand for your Biased, Racist, xenophobic and rabid Anti Albanianism. I further have at least 20 other friends who will join me in deleting Biased and racist anti-Albanianism, It would be wise for you Eric to either reinstate the word Freedom Fighter or place both rebel or Freedom fighter as a neutral to both parties. A source for the word Freedom Fighters??? what a Joke!! Are you racist?? What did Albanians ever do to you? Words like rebel Imply terrorism, radicalism and so on and so forth. there fore I would prefer you change it to something neutral on both sides
I see that not only did you strip the ability to edit but you also replaced the word rebel with the evan more Offensive Radicals!! did some albanian kid bully you in school? robed your milk money or something? maybe stripped you of your girlfriend? or maybe all of the above, Because I don't understand why you would partake in such deliberate Racism, and Misinformation! why?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigwolfx ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Enric, I see that you are expanding the Henry Bauer stub, and I also note that the sources you are using are mostly self-published by Bauer or (for example, in the case of JPANDS) published in non-peer-reviewed, partisan publications. If you look into reliable sources on Henry Bauer such as news reports you will find that Bauer seems to have made the news for his opposition at Virginia Tech to measures meant to increase the representation of underrepresented minorities at the institution and for his adherence to fringe theories. If the article is not going to be deleted, it will need to address these realities. I just wanted to make sure you are aware of this, because from what I've read today, Bauer's controversial views suggest a further expansion of the article could become very uncomfortable, very quickly. Regards, Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 22:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Enric, I am somewhat disturbed by some of your recent comments, and I have probably responded too much in kind. I think we may both have violated the collegiality we should try to maintain here. Part of this might be a generational difference, and I will try to respect that. However, I would like to request that you please try to assume good faith, and I will do my best to do the same.
Second, I didn't want to correct you at the Henry H. Bauer page, since I recognize that English is your second language, but I thought I should tell you here, since I appreciate when people correct my mistakes in the other language I speak. A "seminar" in most of the world means an academic course (in the continental European tradition), but in the United States, where Dr. Bauer taught for most of his career and where he gave the talk in question, "seminar" means a talk. The speaker usually talks for almost an hour, then has a Q&A. That's it. You don't have to believe me; it's made clear in the media report that covered Bauer's talk. (Also, the phrase is "at a university" not "on a university".) I'm not trying to be snide here, I'm just correcting you as I would want from others.
Third, the "AIDSWiki" is not a reliable source and it does not belong on Wikipedia. There is no assurance that the "transcript" is correct or even real. As MastCell mentioned before, the AIDSWiki is a one-man labor of love that is utterly unreliable. And if the transcript is real, should we really link it? I know there are some people who feel it's just information and all information should be out there. But there's information and there are lies. I can't judge Henry Bauer's motivation, in fact I suspect he's just an ignorant contrarian. But I can judge his science. I have read his book, and it is based on simple misunderstandings. He is trying to be a statistician when he's not, and a biologist when he doesn't know much about biology. Intentional or not, his musings on AIDS are lies. The sad part is that many people take them for truth. It's understandable. When you are sick, you don't want to admit it. You don't want medicine. You want to think you will live forever. And when a big science professor and former dean comes along and tells you you're fine, you take his word and don't notice that he hasn't done any science for the past thirty years, is a member of what some people would call a right-wing hate group, has made strident comments about homosexuals in his memoirs, and is an authority, at most, on historical pseudoscience.
Have you known anyone who died in AIDS denial? I have. It makes me sad and mad. It reinforces my view that, in a few rare cases, we have not just a guideline, but a social obligation to uphold policies like WP:UNDUE. And that includes not making a puff piece out of a stub on an obscure fringe professor like Bauer. You're welcome to disagree with me and take the libertarian tack about freedom of speech and letting people decide what to do with their own lives. But I encourage you to at least think about this issue before adding more puffery to the Bauer article. Sorry to write a damn book here, feel free to delete if you don't want it. Thanks, Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw what you did with with {{ Anonymous and the Internet}}. Albeit I think a bit more of why those things are all interlinked w/ each other could be added to the main article at Anonymous (group). Nice work, Cirt ( talk) 05:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well this type of interlinking/integration etc. along a topic or theme should hopefully foster more collaboration among editors of those various articles and perhaps even speed up their overall improvement along quality status. So yea, nice idea, and nice job w/ creating it and taking initiative. Cirt ( talk) 06:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed your good work cleaning up unfortunate redirects. I hope you don't mind, but I'd like you to consider the redirect Co-X_Entertainment. Searching the target page for "Co-X" shows only an extremely brief reference. That reference is a link back to the original redirect.
I have no idea if this is brilliant forward planning for when the redirect is turned into a full page, or whether it should be cleaned up. I'm hoping you have time to deal with it (or take a lot longer to explain it to me, and I'll do it). -- Johnuniq ( talk) 10:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Template:Anonymous and the Internet has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Wafulz ( talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Vassyana#User:QuackGuru. Vassyana ( talk) 21:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Enric, you showed much interest on improving the article of the CoA of Catalonia from what i've been able to read. I'm willing to read your point and reasoning about the edits made in last days. About you asking for a pair of days... Take your time buddy, wiki is not everything in life! ;) -- MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 07:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you. Wikipedia's policy against essays and so forth on userspace; do you think it would cover User:Axlrose365? it IS a conspiracy theory, but it can simply be taken as his opinion, however much of a nutjob it makes him sound like. Thanks for your time!. Ironho lds 09:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
A whole barn full of stars! |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
...that's what they should give to users who can change their mind, as you did here. Truly, the rarest quality among Wikipedians. Congratulations! Niko Silver 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC) |
Greetings from Indonesia! Thank you for informing us about that. We will tell the user that what he is doing is inappropriate. dragunova discuss 17:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
they can't place their tag on every article on which they don't agree with. additonally they don't adher WP:NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.73.54 ( talk) 18:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we just edit-conflicted in the sorting. Give me 10 minutes and I'll merge your changes in. Sorry. Rossami (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your long, hard work on this massive project. In addition to checking out about 80-85% of your list, I've been weeding out categories of his creation and seeing if I can get them speedied (so far, I managed to get rid of about 20 cats, with about another 10 in the pipes). One thing that I've noticed was a very heavy reliance on {{DEFAULTCAT}} so that a one- or two-paragraph article could have as many as 20 categories(!). B.Wind ( talk) 08:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Semi'd Template:Anonymous and the Internet as high risk, Its only a few days old and already getting hit. Cheers-- Hu12 ( talk) 01:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
i want you to appologize for your unjustified accusation of "edit warring". if you have problems with me i suggest you discuss your "problems" directly with me instead of makeing false accusation against me just to get my differing opinion out of wikipedia SomeUsr| Talk| Contribs 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Enric, this user is higly disruptive and unwilling to cooperate in the good path in order to improve the articles. This user has been warned a number of times (even by admins) and keeps committing the same faults in a a harder way each time.
After what I've read in your links in Sclua's talk-page about him calling us "Spanish fascists", his xenophobic comments about chilean and/or southamerican people, his edit warring and personal attacks, I decided to finally report this user to an Arbitration Committee.
Do you wish to back me in this? -- MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 07:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome - glad it worked. There are a *lot* of things in the gadgets section of preferences now. Graham 87 00:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
SA is currently edit warring highly contentious material into Remote viewing (along with an admin who probably has no idea what's what). Your help would be appreciated. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 06:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)