![]() | This page 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. |
Hi Evv, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!
- Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia.
- Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images.
- How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status.
- Manual of Style, how articles should be written.
Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :
Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)
- Mailer Diablo 19:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
yes, they should. but, as long as there is no article about the dynasty, i would let it go to Theo II. Maed 22:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I've posted a user-conduct request for comments on Ferick following his latest bout of edit-warring - it's time to put an end to it. Please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ferick. -- ChrisO 01:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Editor, since you have been involved in editing the Kosovo article in the last months, and that article has been the subject of long ongoing edit wars, your name is listed in the Request for Arbitration on this matter. You can make a statement here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Kosovo. Due to the large number of editors involved, however, I would to ask you to keep your statement concise and to the point. If you feel you have not been substantially involved in the disputes surrounding the Kosovo article, please do not remove your name from the Arbitration request, but rather make a short statement there explaining why you feel you have not been involved enough to be part it. To understand my reasons for requesting Arbitration, please read my statement on the Requests for Arbitration page. Best regards, Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This case is going to be a rather complex one due to the large number of users involved. I would prefer to simplify the evidence-giving stage to make it easier for the Arbitration Committee - how would you feel about giving a joint statement of evidence? I'm happy to make a start on such a statement, which you'd be free to add to or modify as you wish. -- ChrisO 20:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 16:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, i realised that was what he meant, just thought I'd do a little creative quoting. Seriously though, if the intro ends up just the way it is now, that's fine by me. I really just think that if there's a little compromise, things will settle down. In retrospect, using the term 'contested' is probably pushing it a little - after all, all parties involved signed up to UNSCR 1244. It just bugs me when people refuse to discuss compromise, although this is no doubt due in large part to the lengthy and annoying argument which seems to have gone on long before I even knew this article existed.
As a side note, however, I really do think there's a moral responsibility to get things right in wikipedia, especially now that it's creeping up the rankings for google searches on just about anything. Of course, who determines what's right is going to be another interesting issue... Happy Wednesday to you too. Davu.leon 14:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
For the duration of this case, any of the named parties may be banned by an uninvolved administrator from Kosovo or related pages for disruptive edits.
You are receiving this message because you are one of those covered by this injunction.
For the arbitration committee. -- Tony Sidaway 17:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Evv,
I just noticed a new series of reverts had started on Kosovo. Although I understand your good intentions, I think it is better not to revert too much at the moment. The abitration is still going on and more people than regularly are therefore monitoring Kosovo. Just let them for now, there is not much harm it that. Best regards, -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
That section has been reworded.. On the other hand I am new to Wiki and haven't followed the discussion page about this issue.. On the other hand, pls also note that the section talks about the stumbling blocks in the candidacy of Turkey to join the EU; human rights and Cyprus are mentioned in the accession reports, where as this isn't.. There has not been a formal demand from the EU and the European Commission in the candidacy process, and thus it would not be considered as a stumbling block since the EU has not made such a formal demand. I am not beating around the bush, it could be considered as such in other issues, but not the one about Turkish-EU relations (please note that the EU is a seperate identity than the states that compose it, therefore the section is named as such, not Turkish-European relations).. The same goes for proximity to the Middle East and poor economy.. These are not found in any of the EU accession documents.. They talk about market reforms, yes, but not a poor economy.. Same goes for Middle East, what is the proof that it is a stumbling block in the accession process? I know that it is a factor in the sense that there are issues arising from it, but it is way too much of a blanket statement to be included in that part.. Cheers! Baristarim 21:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The edit war over the inclusion of the genocide in Turkey-EU relations seems to be continuing. Could you help us reach consensus? Yandman 08:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello detector. How you know thate it was Hipi Zhdripi [1]? Who gives you the right to write something in name Hipi? ChrisO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi ( talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.176.174.62 ( talk · contribs)- 05:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there any agreement on removing italics from Cyrillics, or is it just your personal preference. If latter, please add them back - style issues like that need to be agreed in advance. Zocky | picture popups 02:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
For edit warring, personal attacks, and other disruption, PerfectStorm/C-c-c-c is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. For edit warring and incivility, Bormalagurski is banned from editing Wikipedia from one year. For edit warring and disruptive use of sockpuppets, Dardanv under any username or IP, is banned from editing Wikipedia for one month.
Hipi Zhdripi is limited to his one named account, Hipi Zhdripi. All edits by Hipi Zhdripi under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user.
Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso are banned for one year from editing articles related to Kosovo. Relation to Kosovo is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming. Either may be banned from any related non-article page for disruptive editing. All articles related to Kosovo are put on Article probation to allow more swift dealing with disruption. Editors of Kosovo and related articles who engage in edit warring, incivility, original research, or other disruptive editing, may be banned for an appropriate period of time, in extreme cases indefinitely.
ChrisO is warned not to engage in edit warring, and to engage in only calm discussion and dispute resolution when in conflict. He is instructed not to use the administrative rollback tool in content disputes and encouraged to develop the ability and practice of assisting users who are having trouble understanding and applying Wikipedia policies in doing so. .
Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on Probation for one year. Each may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits, such as edit warring or incivility.
Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso, Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on standard revert parole for one year. Each is limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, each is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.
For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, 03:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
When you reverted to Shugo255's version of Poland you actually restored some vandalism, since Shugo255 is as much a vandalism account as Racejr. Scobell302 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the first I've given out, so hopefully I'm doing it right :)
![]() |
The Minor Barnstar | |
Minor edits are often-overlooked, but essential, contributions to the Wikipedia. This Minor Barnstar is awarded for making minor edits of the utmost quality, everything from making sure articles follow the Manual of Style to attributing unsigned comments and formating in the talk namespace. // Laughing Man 19:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
Evv, Deiz, Calton and Luna Santin I really appreciate the help and support that you were doing lately on my articles but honestly there is no need for that. I would like to advise you people to take care for articles like Ratko Mladić, Mr. Slobodan Milosevic and others like them and help the general readers know the truth about their miserable massacres that they did to kids and insistent people in Bosnia and Kosovo .
There is not just Mr. Abazi’s article that has been vandalized by you but all the Kosovo famous and honorable people including the history of Kosovo. It has been so clear that all the editing that you people have done about that Country is just to make a bad propaganda now that finally Serbia will lose for ever Kosovo in its final status which for sure would be Independent country as it disserves.
I understand your feeling because you are grown in the communism system where everything was leaded by the dictator and you were their kids doing the same they did with people from Kosovo. Even now through the internet you wana talk about us believing in your fathers lies that Kosovo is yours. 7 is the century that we accepted you in that region to work, clean for us and 7 [2007] is gona be the number that you gona say Goodbye for ever to Kosovo. Listen people Wikipedia is free and you can create any network to put adds and protected your fake ideas but please put ones your finger in your head and ask your self how can this be yours when there was never more than 10% shkije - serbs in there And what right do you have to talk about it when you may have never been there and when the whole world knows that Kosova/o is not Slavic place . Tell your fathers that All the churches and abbeys where owned by chthonic Albanians before 1200 and Vatican has the property papers for that. Accept the truth.
For the end. There wouldn’t be any other respond on this desiccation page or any other like this from me. I just needed to tell you this. You can take it off if you feel like some none Balkan people will read this little truth.
You do what you can to lie and I do what I can to tell the truth with my articles.
Beni —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.55.31 ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Evv! I have a question regarding this edit of yours. I assume that you are italicized the words "guberniya", "uyezd", "volost", etc. per the "Foreign terms" clause of WP:ITALICS. That clause, however, states that one should avoid italicizing the terms that appear in "an English dictionary". While I understand that a specific dictionary is not specified in the guideline (perhaps, it should be), I want to point out that words such as "guberniya", "oblast", and "raion" are present in Merriam-Webster's Unabridged, while "volost" and "krai", if I am not mistaken, are featured in OED (I don't have access to the latter dictionary at the moment, however). What gives? I'd appreciate your comments.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 13:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you add the language infoboxes to your userpage, so other editors know what non-English sources you can read and translate?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 01:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
|
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Any chance of getting you to delete your comment about BC vs BCE from the discussion on the proposal to move the Seleucia article? Don't get me wrong; this is only a polite request, not an attempted command or anything (which I could not enforce even if I were inclined to make). But your remark really is not relevant to the topic rightly under consideration there, and it is liable to encourage others to likewise give attention to a tangent. Actually, I'm thinking of asking the others if they'd agree to nuke all of the BC-vs-BCE stuff now in the move-proposal discussion. For starters, though, would you? Pretty please? -- Lonewolf BC 00:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
FYI, as discussed on the Lost talk page regarding that move, now that the move discussion there is closed I've listed Misery as a move request as well. -- Maelwys 16:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, could you please add your opinion
here. I made a new poll to clarify things and try to find a consensus.
Cuñado
-
Talk
06:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi!, Great stuff, although your fourth test was for the Croat for Giorgio Giulio, rather than Giulio Clovio - but I think the point is very well made anyway.
If you fancy another one (!), Talk:Juraj Dalmatinac is similar, has some of the same cast, & is more evenly-balanced, three ways. If not, well I'm not surprised ....
All the best, Johnbod 00:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Evv. Before reverting the Haradinaj article again, please take some time to look at BBC, CNN, Reuters, or any other contemporary English language writing on Kosovo. I believe it is now clearly the case that English usage favours the Albanian version of placenames for Kosovo, not least because they utilise the same script, without bothersome approximations of Cyrillic.
I agree with you that the articles with Serbian placenames should be changed to reflect common usage, but I am far less experienced than you at editing Wikipedia, and not sure how to go about it. Perhaps you could be of assistance?
Sorry if some of my earlier reverts on the article in question were a bit heavy-handed - I actually really appreciate many of the small changes and improvements you've made, but the simple fact is that Serbian placenames simply are not in common English usage any more. Also, small points, like the fact that Haradinaj's party is called the Alliance for the future of Kosova, not Kosovo, combined with a headache that made me somewhat irritable, contributed to my own hasty reverts.
Hope this sounds reasonable to you. Davu.leon 03:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
How can Priŝtina be common english usage, when the letter ŝ does not exist in the standard english alphabet? It should be either Prishtina or Pristina in order to reflect common english usage.-- Thomas.macmillan 00:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Evv please read the additions and suggestions I have made to Nic Renys [2] Thanks Labbas 8 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.31.82 ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Evv. No problem, you can move my comment.-- RedZebra 10:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Evv, I have tied to NPOVise these two articles: Gornje Obrinje massacre and Podujevo massacre. I would appreciate a second opinion and help expanding them, time given. I think the first one has got potential as it was the reason argued for the deployment of the observer missions in Kosovo. Thanks, Asterion talk 23:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Evv, I appreciate your input to solve the naming issues regarding that guy a.k.a. this bloke, and that thingie, even though I got irritated by, well, what I would perceive readiness to learn and quickness to endorse the most recent proposal (not adding links to protect the innocent). In that context, I'm even more puzzled by your "Survey" which is supposed to be none yet. Two experienced editors fell for the familiar format and voted. After I had edited the layout, you (re)inserted contradicting instructions: "Do not vote yet :-)" "Add #Move or #Keep...", and "Do not vote yet :-)". As for your preselection of options, I was disappointed considering the effort that was put in by yourself, and I'am even more so after you confirmed them. Why not putting up only one option, the option that will get overwhelming applause from the usual suspects within a few hours? Everybody involved could then enjoy the weekend without wasting more time on that issue. -- Matthead discuß! O 09:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
On a related note, I think you made a mistake in counts: Searching for "Kraków grosz" or "Krakow grosz": 0 books. but The Polish Way: (...) ...with the introduction of the Kraków grosz in 1338. In the...? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you take a look at Racak incident. It is very clear that the article right now is POV. Maybe you could help us to make it NPOV. Read what I have written in the talk page. I hope you do not have any prejudices against Albanians as many others here have.-- Noah30 17:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with using English instead of foreign terms in articles. A few are trying to "Anglicise" French terms in Wiki articles according to current guidelines but there is some resistance (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement"). Your input would be appreciated here. Thankyou. -- Bob 16:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but there is now an RfC open on the subject of using English in French administrative division articles. I don't expect you to contribute much time to this, but if you can, could you please voice a statement and disagree/agree with those statements found there. Maybe we will arrive at a reasonable conclusion soon. It can be found here. Thanks in advance. -- Bob 22:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
A Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Anglicisation of French administrative terms has been initiated, a comment/statement there would be appreciated. I know that you already participated in this discussion before, and it is probably getting tiresome by now, but it is apparently the next logical step, although it might be moved to mediation. Thanks in advance. -- Bob 23:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't know much about the situation, but a brief glance at Special:Contributions/Firdaus 76 suggests this user may be actively vandalizing pages by changing spellings and removing any references to Serbia or Yugoslavia. You seem to have made some edits to the same pages, so I thought I'd point it out to you. - TheMightyQuill 06:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Evv, I couldn't resist. I'm sure you'll agree with me though, that Nikola's post was mostly worthless. I really think that condensing the Kosovo article is a worthy project, and I'll try to step back from that one now, as I'm sure there's a few editors who don't want to hear anything from me on the subject, right or wrong. I hope we can avoid this devolving into another argument for argument's sake, and sorry if I've caused you true neutrals another headache. :) Davu.leon 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Evv, thanks so much for your calm and thoughtful contributions. Your cool-headed and sage interventions are always appreciated! I'm curious: what is your link to the Balkans? Have you lived or worked there? Envoy202 01:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you please work your magic and try to make sense of threading on Talk:Republika Srpska? :) The latest conversion threading regarding national symbols are so disjointed and signatures in wrong place, etc. I started trying to clean it up but gave up after short while when I realized how bad it got. If you don't bother I'll understand since it's such a mess, so no worries :) // Laughing Man 22:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Greetings! After a long period of discussion and consensus building, the policy on usurping usernames has been approved, and a process has been set up to handle these requests. Since you listed yourself on Wikipedia:Changing username/Requests to usurp, you are being notified of the adopted process for completing your request.
If you are still interested in usurping a username, please review Wikipedia:Usurpation. If your request meets the criteria in the policy, please follow the process on Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Please note that strict adherence to the policy is required, so please read the instructions carefully, and ask any questions you may have on the talk page.
If you have decided you no longer wish to usurp a username, please disregard this message. Essjay (Talk) 12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
:-)
.
Duja
►
16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Cheers for that. Yes, please do erase the redundant section, and any parts that are cluttering up the (already overlong) Talk:Kosovo page. Again, great, and no doubt under-appreciated work. Thanks again. Davu.leon 22:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello Evv. I will decline to reopen the poll, I found a consensus towards moving the article, and among those willing to move it, University of Priština was clearly the favorite choice. Yes, I know that move debates regarding Priština and other Kosovo-related names always prompt mild clashes between Serb and Albanian Wikipedians, resulting in an ethnically divided poll. However, as administrators clear the backlog on WP:RM, we often have to focus only in the outcome of the debate, rather than in outside issues. Regards, Hús ö nd 17:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I have made suggestions on the Pro Abanian and Serbian link sites. Would appreciate you comments Buffadren 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I would say 'you're welcome' in Spanish, the problem is I don't know how to ;-) -- Domitius 18:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I looked for an online English version but couldn't find it. I have a translation that a friend did for me but I guess it qulaifies as 'original research.' I'd try asking Nikola but I'm guessing I'm not his favourite person here on Wikipedia. Davu.leon 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is worded too strongly but the river incident is important to explain how things sparked off. There is doubt about the facts and even one child that survived supposed though the UN said they were not chased. Others say there were and the family have been pressed by UN etc. Either way it should be mentioned.Its not a minor event...I am happy to have you phrase it if you like Buffadren 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what to do with the new format on the talk page. Where do I vote and where do I write?-- Conjoiner 22:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for moving my edit on the Shat al arab talk page --
Aziz1005
20:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You should ask for checkuser for GiorgioOrsini, Giovanni Giove and NovaNova. They all have the same style, use the same or extremely similar argumentation and they share a similar interests in articles and often are present toghether in many edit-wars. I am convinced they are the same person. Due to the ammount of disruption, incivility and sockpuppetry indef. block for this person would be most appropriate. -- EppurSiMuove 10:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Please, bear on your mind that a talk page does not serve for the purpose like this one here [5]! Your claim about someone as being a sock puppet of soneone else, must be substantiated by following official Wikipedia policy!
I've deleted your 'contribution' on the talk page. Your attempt to put it back will be ultimately reported as a Wikipedia incident.-- Giorgio Orsini 21:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You're spamming different talk pages with a partisan message, begging people to support your position on a dispute. This is unacceptable behavior, I invite you to remove the partisan messages or make them nonpartisan by rewording them in a neutral manner, without advocating one side of the dispute. -- Mardavich 04:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The next step would appear to be an RfC on disruptive user conduct. We need to restrain some nationalists, or Wikipedia will gradually become worthless. If you write one, let me know; I expect to be able to endorse it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. -- tariqabjotu 14:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in the discussion regarding the use of the names "Bratislava" and "Pressburg" on Talk:Bratislava. I would like also to invite you to a poll that will show us the real support for the two alternatives. I hope the poll will help us reach consensus and close this case so we can move on to other improvements of that (hopefully) future featured article. You can access the poll at Talk:Bratislava#Poll. I look forward to your opinion. Tankred 05:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have made the move.
I found that I cannot protect against editing without also protecting against editing. Anthony Appleyard 09:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
You comments about Albanophobia were very biased. I was really surprised to read that you wanted deletion of Albanophobia but not Serbophobia, despite tha fact everything was sourced. Only shows that all your edits here with changing official names (e.g. Democratic Party of Kosova) from Kosova to Kosovo are biased.-- Noah30 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
A Serb wikipedian is writing Kosovo and Metohija instead of Kosovo in the Serbia-article. Would you like to take a look? I have reverted his edits twice until know.-- Noah30 05:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi! You voted for deletion of the article Estophobia. Are not the same arguments applicable to Russophobia as well?-- Mbuk 07:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not change the already closed debate even if you add a few spaces only. It must be kept as it is. Thanks. ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you voted for the project deletion. I'm sorry I noticed this thing a little bit late, please review my comments on the MfD page here and also here, I think we are going to make a big mistake if we delete a whole project because of the To do page dispute. I'm open for discussion. MatriX 22:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
...that Wikipedia gets another admin, named Ev. I must say I'm impressed with your cool-headedness, civility and knowledge of policy, especially taking into account the hot and rugged terrain. (And it's not entirely selfless proposal, as the WP:RM, which I often handle, tends to get so backlogged that we'd really use some help from someone familiar with WP:NC. If you agree, I'll fill in the proposal tomorrow or day after; from then on, it's up to you to answer the question and list it on WP:RFA. Duja ► 11:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. You have a couple of days to fill it in or reject. I won't be around during the weekend—feel free to list it yourself when and if you decide. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate for the procedure details. Regards and good luck. Duja ► 10:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
user:GB-UK-BI is a socketpup of indef blocked vandal user:gon4z. He has a vast record of inserting unsourced nationalistic pro-Albanian propaganda and/or anti-Serbian claims into articles - especially regarding Kosovo and Albanian military forces. As sock of a blocked user I reported him to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - in case you come across other socks of Gon4z - revert his edits and report the suspected sock to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. best regards, -- noclador 22:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, you are now an administrator! Now is the time to visit the Wikipedia:New admin school and, if you haven't already, to look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 03:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Since I saw your name in
The Wikipedia Signpost (congrats, BTW) I had to drop by and crack this joke:
Hi, Ev. --
Hi
Ev
13:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
---|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s, "B"s and "C" having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "D"s, "E"s and "F"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) ++ Lar: t/ c 18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | This page 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. |
Hi Evv, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!
- Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia.
- Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images.
- How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status.
- Manual of Style, how articles should be written.
Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :
Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)
- Mailer Diablo 19:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
yes, they should. but, as long as there is no article about the dynasty, i would let it go to Theo II. Maed 22:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I've posted a user-conduct request for comments on Ferick following his latest bout of edit-warring - it's time to put an end to it. Please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ferick. -- ChrisO 01:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Editor, since you have been involved in editing the Kosovo article in the last months, and that article has been the subject of long ongoing edit wars, your name is listed in the Request for Arbitration on this matter. You can make a statement here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Kosovo. Due to the large number of editors involved, however, I would to ask you to keep your statement concise and to the point. If you feel you have not been substantially involved in the disputes surrounding the Kosovo article, please do not remove your name from the Arbitration request, but rather make a short statement there explaining why you feel you have not been involved enough to be part it. To understand my reasons for requesting Arbitration, please read my statement on the Requests for Arbitration page. Best regards, Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This case is going to be a rather complex one due to the large number of users involved. I would prefer to simplify the evidence-giving stage to make it easier for the Arbitration Committee - how would you feel about giving a joint statement of evidence? I'm happy to make a start on such a statement, which you'd be free to add to or modify as you wish. -- ChrisO 20:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 16:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, i realised that was what he meant, just thought I'd do a little creative quoting. Seriously though, if the intro ends up just the way it is now, that's fine by me. I really just think that if there's a little compromise, things will settle down. In retrospect, using the term 'contested' is probably pushing it a little - after all, all parties involved signed up to UNSCR 1244. It just bugs me when people refuse to discuss compromise, although this is no doubt due in large part to the lengthy and annoying argument which seems to have gone on long before I even knew this article existed.
As a side note, however, I really do think there's a moral responsibility to get things right in wikipedia, especially now that it's creeping up the rankings for google searches on just about anything. Of course, who determines what's right is going to be another interesting issue... Happy Wednesday to you too. Davu.leon 14:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
For the duration of this case, any of the named parties may be banned by an uninvolved administrator from Kosovo or related pages for disruptive edits.
You are receiving this message because you are one of those covered by this injunction.
For the arbitration committee. -- Tony Sidaway 17:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Evv,
I just noticed a new series of reverts had started on Kosovo. Although I understand your good intentions, I think it is better not to revert too much at the moment. The abitration is still going on and more people than regularly are therefore monitoring Kosovo. Just let them for now, there is not much harm it that. Best regards, -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
That section has been reworded.. On the other hand I am new to Wiki and haven't followed the discussion page about this issue.. On the other hand, pls also note that the section talks about the stumbling blocks in the candidacy of Turkey to join the EU; human rights and Cyprus are mentioned in the accession reports, where as this isn't.. There has not been a formal demand from the EU and the European Commission in the candidacy process, and thus it would not be considered as a stumbling block since the EU has not made such a formal demand. I am not beating around the bush, it could be considered as such in other issues, but not the one about Turkish-EU relations (please note that the EU is a seperate identity than the states that compose it, therefore the section is named as such, not Turkish-European relations).. The same goes for proximity to the Middle East and poor economy.. These are not found in any of the EU accession documents.. They talk about market reforms, yes, but not a poor economy.. Same goes for Middle East, what is the proof that it is a stumbling block in the accession process? I know that it is a factor in the sense that there are issues arising from it, but it is way too much of a blanket statement to be included in that part.. Cheers! Baristarim 21:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The edit war over the inclusion of the genocide in Turkey-EU relations seems to be continuing. Could you help us reach consensus? Yandman 08:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello detector. How you know thate it was Hipi Zhdripi [1]? Who gives you the right to write something in name Hipi? ChrisO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi ( talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.176.174.62 ( talk · contribs)- 05:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there any agreement on removing italics from Cyrillics, or is it just your personal preference. If latter, please add them back - style issues like that need to be agreed in advance. Zocky | picture popups 02:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
For edit warring, personal attacks, and other disruption, PerfectStorm/C-c-c-c is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. For edit warring and incivility, Bormalagurski is banned from editing Wikipedia from one year. For edit warring and disruptive use of sockpuppets, Dardanv under any username or IP, is banned from editing Wikipedia for one month.
Hipi Zhdripi is limited to his one named account, Hipi Zhdripi. All edits by Hipi Zhdripi under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user.
Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso are banned for one year from editing articles related to Kosovo. Relation to Kosovo is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming. Either may be banned from any related non-article page for disruptive editing. All articles related to Kosovo are put on Article probation to allow more swift dealing with disruption. Editors of Kosovo and related articles who engage in edit warring, incivility, original research, or other disruptive editing, may be banned for an appropriate period of time, in extreme cases indefinitely.
ChrisO is warned not to engage in edit warring, and to engage in only calm discussion and dispute resolution when in conflict. He is instructed not to use the administrative rollback tool in content disputes and encouraged to develop the ability and practice of assisting users who are having trouble understanding and applying Wikipedia policies in doing so. .
Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on Probation for one year. Each may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits, such as edit warring or incivility.
Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso, Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on standard revert parole for one year. Each is limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, each is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.
For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, 03:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
When you reverted to Shugo255's version of Poland you actually restored some vandalism, since Shugo255 is as much a vandalism account as Racejr. Scobell302 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the first I've given out, so hopefully I'm doing it right :)
![]() |
The Minor Barnstar | |
Minor edits are often-overlooked, but essential, contributions to the Wikipedia. This Minor Barnstar is awarded for making minor edits of the utmost quality, everything from making sure articles follow the Manual of Style to attributing unsigned comments and formating in the talk namespace. // Laughing Man 19:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
Evv, Deiz, Calton and Luna Santin I really appreciate the help and support that you were doing lately on my articles but honestly there is no need for that. I would like to advise you people to take care for articles like Ratko Mladić, Mr. Slobodan Milosevic and others like them and help the general readers know the truth about their miserable massacres that they did to kids and insistent people in Bosnia and Kosovo .
There is not just Mr. Abazi’s article that has been vandalized by you but all the Kosovo famous and honorable people including the history of Kosovo. It has been so clear that all the editing that you people have done about that Country is just to make a bad propaganda now that finally Serbia will lose for ever Kosovo in its final status which for sure would be Independent country as it disserves.
I understand your feeling because you are grown in the communism system where everything was leaded by the dictator and you were their kids doing the same they did with people from Kosovo. Even now through the internet you wana talk about us believing in your fathers lies that Kosovo is yours. 7 is the century that we accepted you in that region to work, clean for us and 7 [2007] is gona be the number that you gona say Goodbye for ever to Kosovo. Listen people Wikipedia is free and you can create any network to put adds and protected your fake ideas but please put ones your finger in your head and ask your self how can this be yours when there was never more than 10% shkije - serbs in there And what right do you have to talk about it when you may have never been there and when the whole world knows that Kosova/o is not Slavic place . Tell your fathers that All the churches and abbeys where owned by chthonic Albanians before 1200 and Vatican has the property papers for that. Accept the truth.
For the end. There wouldn’t be any other respond on this desiccation page or any other like this from me. I just needed to tell you this. You can take it off if you feel like some none Balkan people will read this little truth.
You do what you can to lie and I do what I can to tell the truth with my articles.
Beni —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.55.31 ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Evv! I have a question regarding this edit of yours. I assume that you are italicized the words "guberniya", "uyezd", "volost", etc. per the "Foreign terms" clause of WP:ITALICS. That clause, however, states that one should avoid italicizing the terms that appear in "an English dictionary". While I understand that a specific dictionary is not specified in the guideline (perhaps, it should be), I want to point out that words such as "guberniya", "oblast", and "raion" are present in Merriam-Webster's Unabridged, while "volost" and "krai", if I am not mistaken, are featured in OED (I don't have access to the latter dictionary at the moment, however). What gives? I'd appreciate your comments.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 13:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you add the language infoboxes to your userpage, so other editors know what non-English sources you can read and translate?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 01:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
|
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Any chance of getting you to delete your comment about BC vs BCE from the discussion on the proposal to move the Seleucia article? Don't get me wrong; this is only a polite request, not an attempted command or anything (which I could not enforce even if I were inclined to make). But your remark really is not relevant to the topic rightly under consideration there, and it is liable to encourage others to likewise give attention to a tangent. Actually, I'm thinking of asking the others if they'd agree to nuke all of the BC-vs-BCE stuff now in the move-proposal discussion. For starters, though, would you? Pretty please? -- Lonewolf BC 00:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
FYI, as discussed on the Lost talk page regarding that move, now that the move discussion there is closed I've listed Misery as a move request as well. -- Maelwys 16:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, could you please add your opinion
here. I made a new poll to clarify things and try to find a consensus.
Cuñado
-
Talk
06:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi!, Great stuff, although your fourth test was for the Croat for Giorgio Giulio, rather than Giulio Clovio - but I think the point is very well made anyway.
If you fancy another one (!), Talk:Juraj Dalmatinac is similar, has some of the same cast, & is more evenly-balanced, three ways. If not, well I'm not surprised ....
All the best, Johnbod 00:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Evv. Before reverting the Haradinaj article again, please take some time to look at BBC, CNN, Reuters, or any other contemporary English language writing on Kosovo. I believe it is now clearly the case that English usage favours the Albanian version of placenames for Kosovo, not least because they utilise the same script, without bothersome approximations of Cyrillic.
I agree with you that the articles with Serbian placenames should be changed to reflect common usage, but I am far less experienced than you at editing Wikipedia, and not sure how to go about it. Perhaps you could be of assistance?
Sorry if some of my earlier reverts on the article in question were a bit heavy-handed - I actually really appreciate many of the small changes and improvements you've made, but the simple fact is that Serbian placenames simply are not in common English usage any more. Also, small points, like the fact that Haradinaj's party is called the Alliance for the future of Kosova, not Kosovo, combined with a headache that made me somewhat irritable, contributed to my own hasty reverts.
Hope this sounds reasonable to you. Davu.leon 03:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
How can Priŝtina be common english usage, when the letter ŝ does not exist in the standard english alphabet? It should be either Prishtina or Pristina in order to reflect common english usage.-- Thomas.macmillan 00:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Evv please read the additions and suggestions I have made to Nic Renys [2] Thanks Labbas 8 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.31.82 ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Evv. No problem, you can move my comment.-- RedZebra 10:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Evv, I have tied to NPOVise these two articles: Gornje Obrinje massacre and Podujevo massacre. I would appreciate a second opinion and help expanding them, time given. I think the first one has got potential as it was the reason argued for the deployment of the observer missions in Kosovo. Thanks, Asterion talk 23:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Evv, I appreciate your input to solve the naming issues regarding that guy a.k.a. this bloke, and that thingie, even though I got irritated by, well, what I would perceive readiness to learn and quickness to endorse the most recent proposal (not adding links to protect the innocent). In that context, I'm even more puzzled by your "Survey" which is supposed to be none yet. Two experienced editors fell for the familiar format and voted. After I had edited the layout, you (re)inserted contradicting instructions: "Do not vote yet :-)" "Add #Move or #Keep...", and "Do not vote yet :-)". As for your preselection of options, I was disappointed considering the effort that was put in by yourself, and I'am even more so after you confirmed them. Why not putting up only one option, the option that will get overwhelming applause from the usual suspects within a few hours? Everybody involved could then enjoy the weekend without wasting more time on that issue. -- Matthead discuß! O 09:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
On a related note, I think you made a mistake in counts: Searching for "Kraków grosz" or "Krakow grosz": 0 books. but The Polish Way: (...) ...with the introduction of the Kraków grosz in 1338. In the...? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you take a look at Racak incident. It is very clear that the article right now is POV. Maybe you could help us to make it NPOV. Read what I have written in the talk page. I hope you do not have any prejudices against Albanians as many others here have.-- Noah30 17:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with using English instead of foreign terms in articles. A few are trying to "Anglicise" French terms in Wiki articles according to current guidelines but there is some resistance (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement"). Your input would be appreciated here. Thankyou. -- Bob 16:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but there is now an RfC open on the subject of using English in French administrative division articles. I don't expect you to contribute much time to this, but if you can, could you please voice a statement and disagree/agree with those statements found there. Maybe we will arrive at a reasonable conclusion soon. It can be found here. Thanks in advance. -- Bob 22:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
A Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Anglicisation of French administrative terms has been initiated, a comment/statement there would be appreciated. I know that you already participated in this discussion before, and it is probably getting tiresome by now, but it is apparently the next logical step, although it might be moved to mediation. Thanks in advance. -- Bob 23:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't know much about the situation, but a brief glance at Special:Contributions/Firdaus 76 suggests this user may be actively vandalizing pages by changing spellings and removing any references to Serbia or Yugoslavia. You seem to have made some edits to the same pages, so I thought I'd point it out to you. - TheMightyQuill 06:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Evv, I couldn't resist. I'm sure you'll agree with me though, that Nikola's post was mostly worthless. I really think that condensing the Kosovo article is a worthy project, and I'll try to step back from that one now, as I'm sure there's a few editors who don't want to hear anything from me on the subject, right or wrong. I hope we can avoid this devolving into another argument for argument's sake, and sorry if I've caused you true neutrals another headache. :) Davu.leon 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Evv, thanks so much for your calm and thoughtful contributions. Your cool-headed and sage interventions are always appreciated! I'm curious: what is your link to the Balkans? Have you lived or worked there? Envoy202 01:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you please work your magic and try to make sense of threading on Talk:Republika Srpska? :) The latest conversion threading regarding national symbols are so disjointed and signatures in wrong place, etc. I started trying to clean it up but gave up after short while when I realized how bad it got. If you don't bother I'll understand since it's such a mess, so no worries :) // Laughing Man 22:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Greetings! After a long period of discussion and consensus building, the policy on usurping usernames has been approved, and a process has been set up to handle these requests. Since you listed yourself on Wikipedia:Changing username/Requests to usurp, you are being notified of the adopted process for completing your request.
If you are still interested in usurping a username, please review Wikipedia:Usurpation. If your request meets the criteria in the policy, please follow the process on Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Please note that strict adherence to the policy is required, so please read the instructions carefully, and ask any questions you may have on the talk page.
If you have decided you no longer wish to usurp a username, please disregard this message. Essjay (Talk) 12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
:-)
.
Duja
►
16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Cheers for that. Yes, please do erase the redundant section, and any parts that are cluttering up the (already overlong) Talk:Kosovo page. Again, great, and no doubt under-appreciated work. Thanks again. Davu.leon 22:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello Evv. I will decline to reopen the poll, I found a consensus towards moving the article, and among those willing to move it, University of Priština was clearly the favorite choice. Yes, I know that move debates regarding Priština and other Kosovo-related names always prompt mild clashes between Serb and Albanian Wikipedians, resulting in an ethnically divided poll. However, as administrators clear the backlog on WP:RM, we often have to focus only in the outcome of the debate, rather than in outside issues. Regards, Hús ö nd 17:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I have made suggestions on the Pro Abanian and Serbian link sites. Would appreciate you comments Buffadren 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I would say 'you're welcome' in Spanish, the problem is I don't know how to ;-) -- Domitius 18:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I looked for an online English version but couldn't find it. I have a translation that a friend did for me but I guess it qulaifies as 'original research.' I'd try asking Nikola but I'm guessing I'm not his favourite person here on Wikipedia. Davu.leon 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is worded too strongly but the river incident is important to explain how things sparked off. There is doubt about the facts and even one child that survived supposed though the UN said they were not chased. Others say there were and the family have been pressed by UN etc. Either way it should be mentioned.Its not a minor event...I am happy to have you phrase it if you like Buffadren 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what to do with the new format on the talk page. Where do I vote and where do I write?-- Conjoiner 22:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for moving my edit on the Shat al arab talk page --
Aziz1005
20:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You should ask for checkuser for GiorgioOrsini, Giovanni Giove and NovaNova. They all have the same style, use the same or extremely similar argumentation and they share a similar interests in articles and often are present toghether in many edit-wars. I am convinced they are the same person. Due to the ammount of disruption, incivility and sockpuppetry indef. block for this person would be most appropriate. -- EppurSiMuove 10:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Please, bear on your mind that a talk page does not serve for the purpose like this one here [5]! Your claim about someone as being a sock puppet of soneone else, must be substantiated by following official Wikipedia policy!
I've deleted your 'contribution' on the talk page. Your attempt to put it back will be ultimately reported as a Wikipedia incident.-- Giorgio Orsini 21:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You're spamming different talk pages with a partisan message, begging people to support your position on a dispute. This is unacceptable behavior, I invite you to remove the partisan messages or make them nonpartisan by rewording them in a neutral manner, without advocating one side of the dispute. -- Mardavich 04:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The next step would appear to be an RfC on disruptive user conduct. We need to restrain some nationalists, or Wikipedia will gradually become worthless. If you write one, let me know; I expect to be able to endorse it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. -- tariqabjotu 14:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in the discussion regarding the use of the names "Bratislava" and "Pressburg" on Talk:Bratislava. I would like also to invite you to a poll that will show us the real support for the two alternatives. I hope the poll will help us reach consensus and close this case so we can move on to other improvements of that (hopefully) future featured article. You can access the poll at Talk:Bratislava#Poll. I look forward to your opinion. Tankred 05:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have made the move.
I found that I cannot protect against editing without also protecting against editing. Anthony Appleyard 09:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
You comments about Albanophobia were very biased. I was really surprised to read that you wanted deletion of Albanophobia but not Serbophobia, despite tha fact everything was sourced. Only shows that all your edits here with changing official names (e.g. Democratic Party of Kosova) from Kosova to Kosovo are biased.-- Noah30 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
A Serb wikipedian is writing Kosovo and Metohija instead of Kosovo in the Serbia-article. Would you like to take a look? I have reverted his edits twice until know.-- Noah30 05:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi! You voted for deletion of the article Estophobia. Are not the same arguments applicable to Russophobia as well?-- Mbuk 07:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not change the already closed debate even if you add a few spaces only. It must be kept as it is. Thanks. ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you voted for the project deletion. I'm sorry I noticed this thing a little bit late, please review my comments on the MfD page here and also here, I think we are going to make a big mistake if we delete a whole project because of the To do page dispute. I'm open for discussion. MatriX 22:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
...that Wikipedia gets another admin, named Ev. I must say I'm impressed with your cool-headedness, civility and knowledge of policy, especially taking into account the hot and rugged terrain. (And it's not entirely selfless proposal, as the WP:RM, which I often handle, tends to get so backlogged that we'd really use some help from someone familiar with WP:NC. If you agree, I'll fill in the proposal tomorrow or day after; from then on, it's up to you to answer the question and list it on WP:RFA. Duja ► 11:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. You have a couple of days to fill it in or reject. I won't be around during the weekend—feel free to list it yourself when and if you decide. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate for the procedure details. Regards and good luck. Duja ► 10:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
user:GB-UK-BI is a socketpup of indef blocked vandal user:gon4z. He has a vast record of inserting unsourced nationalistic pro-Albanian propaganda and/or anti-Serbian claims into articles - especially regarding Kosovo and Albanian military forces. As sock of a blocked user I reported him to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - in case you come across other socks of Gon4z - revert his edits and report the suspected sock to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. best regards, -- noclador 22:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, you are now an administrator! Now is the time to visit the Wikipedia:New admin school and, if you haven't already, to look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 03:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Since I saw your name in
The Wikipedia Signpost (congrats, BTW) I had to drop by and crack this joke:
Hi, Ev. --
Hi
Ev
13:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
---|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s, "B"s and "C" having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "D"s, "E"s and "F"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) ++ Lar: t/ c 18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |