![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
sorry to bother, you but this 'birkenhead drishyakala' article is about a chenda band who was in the news of .co.uk last week since it's an online news paper the article that i created is within the policies of wikipedia. please undo what you have done
yours faithfully divine Alexabraham22da ( talk) 15:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thanks for the replay
Alexabraham22da (
talk)
15:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
SwisterTwister has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
†
|
I hope you enjoy this cupcake as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 19:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm a new user to Wiki. I became a user because I use Wikipedia a lot and often see missing or incorrect info. on topics that I may know something about.
The first correction I made was flagged by you as vandalism but I can assure you it is not misuse or incorrect:
In the Mel Brooks film "Robin Hood: Men in Tights," the character portrayed by Alan Rickman is not the Sheriff of Nottingham but the "Sheriff of Rottingham" (a pun on the Robin Hood character).
Classicalib ( talk) 22:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm an idiot. I should have known that wasn't Alan Rickman. I was looking at two pages in a short period of time and corrected the wrong one. What I said about the film "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" was correct but Alan Rickman is in "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves." Thanks for catching my ridiculous mistake!
Classicalib ( talk) 23:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Well spotted: User:Divineabrahamda is actually the puppeteer, and Alexabraham22da is just one of his puppets. Should I rename the SPI? Thanks, Gurt Posh ( talk) 11:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
What part of the page breaches copy right?
thank you,
Luke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Bonathan ( talk • contribs) 10:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not looking to advertise or breach any copyright violations. Once I have created the page as desired in my area (I will use your company info box and shorten the history and make it look pretty) how do I then move it to the general area of Wikipedia? Should I contact you for approval? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.255.154 ( talk) 16:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you think it is ready for the main site now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Luke_Bonathan/Amano_Corporation#Profile
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Bonathan ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
For blocking those incredibly troublesome Christ Church Grammar School vandals, and semi-protecting the article. Metricopolus ( talk) 13:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Favonian, I have decided to ask for your help as you previously blocked a person who used sockpuppets, and I think he might be back. Someone who has not edited anywhere as far as I can see on Wiki has messaged me to ask for help, and that makes me wonder why me, as I am probably, in the whole Wiki experience, rather hard to find. I spend most of my time playing around with little hamlets and villages in Lincolnshire. This person User_talk:Kkumar123 has approached me, on both my page and his own, and previously I was contacted by User_talk:Brattley 36 who was a sockpuppet of User talk:Crouch, Swale. Many thanks if you can check that out. Panderoona ( talk) 16:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking the above, would you mind revdel his edits to my talk page please. Mt king (edits) 09:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
For your continued co-operation in reverting POV edits on K2 and Kashmiri related entries. Qwrk ( talk) 17:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
The real club name is Al Ahly not Al Ahly S.C. and Wikipedia do not let me do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzizoo ( talk • contribs) 08:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Minor barnstar |
This is the suckup barnstar, for defending an asshole Wikipedian for no real reason! Good job defending the status quo! X883 ( talk) 08:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
Pest control activities much appreciated :) JRPG ( talk) 22:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like another opinion on a page protection I did and I think needs replacing - you'll need to see my talk page to understand. Dougweller ( talk) 13:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting back my talk page. It is time an admin steps in here, because one does not know the rules and is creating trouble and another knows the rules very well and he is damaging a whole group of articles with cited arguments on the lead sections. Hoverfish Talk 18:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I am doing some research into members of the London County Council - will update Wikipedia as appropriate. The question is - as Henry Percy Harris is a historical person and a presumably different person whose page has been deleted, what will be the situation when I get enough to write about the LCC person? (I can make use of Londonwiki as an intermediary if appropriate). Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! Can you impose temporary semi-protection on that article which appears to be persistently vandalized by an anonimous user? Regards, -- Gligan ( talk) 09:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Reaper Eternal ( talk) 19:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
That user appears to be a sock of User:Idealisis, who created another sock ( User:Milordass), as another vandalism-only account. Milordass just became active again as soon as IownKudzu was blocked. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 22:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I observe that you blocked this address one month ago, and the editor at that time was systematically changing "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic". I observed as soon as the block expired the editor resumed the behavior, making nonsensical changes, and turning valid "See also" links into red links. Considering that the editor has long-term access to this IP, I view it as the same as a registered account. I suggest an indefinite block. Jc3s5h ( talk) 03:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there; you recently blocked this editor for removing obscenity from another editor's talk page. I would concede that he should not have done so. It seems that this editor and his wife ( user:82.11.178.239) have both been editing the same articles, and both are currently blocked; the IP by Fastily. They are clearly guilty of meatpuppetry (not, I think, sock) and of lack of understanding of wikipedia policy as it relates to user talk pages and to the absence of censorship here; I do wonder if the error is one of ignorance rather than deliberate disruption? Could I ask you to re-visit it and consider? -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 19:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I've been away from Wikipedia for a bit. Yes, I did indeed request a rename. I've redirected the pages to the new name, though there may be some utility to better fix it. Sowsnek ( talk) 21:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I sent an unblock email, but I haven't received a response (Sent on Sunday). 98.219.123.213 ( talk) 11:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Favonian, have you looked into this? I don't mean to be annoying, but... 98.219.123.213 ( talk) 20:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Favonian? 98.219.123.213 ( talk) 00:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I reccently found you vandilized the article Brony and your edits have been undone. -- 80.78.77.224 ( talk) 20:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
You blocked Herbolzheim, giving the reason in the block log as "Disruptive editing: same as User talk:82.11.178.239". Following discussion at User talk:82.11.178.239 and consultation with the administrator who blocked that IP ( Fastily), the IP has been unblocked. Usually I consult the blocking admin before unblocking, but in this case I decided that there was no point in keeping the account blocked once the IP was open for the user to edit from, so I have unblocked the account too. I hope that is OK with you, but please tell me if you have any objection. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. This is all a bit confusing to me still. Wtfsvi ( talk) 11:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Favonian! I notice that you blocked this charming fellow the other day, and I'm pretty sure that 94.4.123.182 ( talk · contribs) and 94.2.177.166 ( talk · contribs) are more IPs used by this person - they all use Easynet out of London and all are harassing the user TreasuryTag. At the very least, the first IP mentioned should share a one-week block for personal attacks/harassment for calling me a "interfering moron" who needs to "get a life". [1] He's clearly only here to harass, and is probably a blocked user. Just thought I'd let you know. Cheers :> Doc talk 01:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Favonian - I just saw your warning to me regarding vandalism. I'd like to discuss and clear the air. Cheers, RealAuroraGuy RealAuroraGuy ( talk) 16:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Guilty as charged. A friend of mine was being insulted unfairly, and I tried to right the wrong, albiet poorly. The comment removals were based on a long story about a town divided by a very strange set of events involving blogging pains, protecting the rights of anonymity, and a very vindictive ex-mayor - but, it's a long story. In my (only) defence, I was brand new to Wiki, and didn't take the time to read the rules before I started changing things. I know them now. For what it's worth, I have a great deal of respect for democracy and rules, especially in cyberspace. I appreciate good debate and try to never make it personal - most of the time, anyway. Mea culpa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealAuroraGuy ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Out of interest, what was the rationale here? To call the move arguments weak would be an understatement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
{{COI|date=August 2011}}{{POV-lead|date=August 2011}}{{format footnotes|date=August 2011}}{{Copy edit|date=August 2011}}{{Expert-subject|date=August 2011}} {{Use British English|date=August 2011}}
(cur | prev) 10:47, 7 August 2011 89.211.50.131 (talk) (16,953 bytes) (undo)
(cur | prev) 10:26, 7 August 2011 Favonian (talk | contribs) (17,129 bytes) (rm incorrectly used {{ shortcut}}) (undo)
(cur | prev) 10:23, 7 August 2011 Favonian (talk | contribs) (17,152 bytes) (Reverted 9 edits by 89.211.50.131 (talk): Admin tags removed without addressing issues. (TW)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 06:50, 7 August 2011 89.211.50.131 (talk) (16,953 bytes) (→Arabian Plate) (undo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)&action=history
JohnLloydScharf ( talk) 12:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not collapsing anything. I am not editing the article or the Discussion page unless there is at least a Silver Lock on it. The topic of Haplogroup is complex. Haplogroup R seems to have a page for every sub-haplogroup and every individual family has a sub-haplogroup. Haplogroup J is one of the youngest and most of it is at the edge of antiquity, as opposed to pre-historic. Every issue becomes a Jihad/Crusade conflict. I just wanted to put together all that we know in one place and it has turned into a Voyage to La Puta. Having eight hours of yeoman like work trashed in 15 minutes is enough.
JohnLloydScharf (
talk)
17:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
It is the same one from the same company at the same hotel in Qatar. http://toolserver.org/~chm/whois.php?ip=78.101.35.243 He did not even edit out the text. He just reverts it. You are engaged in a Sisyphean task until a Silver Lock is put on the article.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)
I do not respect personal attacks, tolerate antisocial behavior, or push rocks up hill well. I am just going to monitor the behavior of this unsigned vandal and whether
User:Andrew_Lancaster takes steps to deal with it. Until then, my editing is done.
JohnLloydScharf (
talk)
21:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
He, she or it is toying with the Discussions as well:
(cur | prev) 20:02, 7 August 2011 78.101.35.243 (talk) (69,132 bytes) (→Map depicts J1 M267*G variant rather than being a map of J1 Haplogroup in general.) (undo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)&action=history
JohnLloydScharf (
talk)
22:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
1 List of Vandals
2 178.152.109.94 Range:178.152.0.0 - 178.152.127.255
3 78.101.34.219 Range: 78.101.32.0 - 78.101.63.255
4 78.101.53.167 Range: 78.101.32.0 - 78.101.63.255
5 178.152.109.94 Range: 178.152.0.0 - 178.152.127.255
6 78.100.170.235 Range:'78.100.160.0 - 78.100.191.255'
7 178.152.109.94 Range:178.152.0.0 - 178.152.127.255
8 89.211.50.131 Range: 89.211.50.128 - 89.211.50.143
9 78.101.34.219 Range: 78.101.32.0 - 78.101.63.255
10 78.101.35.243 Range:78.101.32.0 - 78.101.63.255
JohnLloydScharf (
talk)
22:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Favonian. Considering that:
I don't see how a continued, lengthy block is of benefit to the project. Could I ask you take another look and consider unblocking or shortening the block duration? Thank you, Swarm u | t 22:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that you have deleted the Lucien Laviscount page in the past. I have now re-written this page to prove that it passes Wikipedia's notability rules. Please could you view the page in the link below and copy it into the Lucien Laviscount space? I would do it myself, but unregistered and newly registered Wikipedians are, apparently, unable to do this. Thank you
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=445681110
188.220.151.140 ( talk) 15:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
If I withdrew the request for a move at Timothy Michael Dolan, then could I submit it as an uncontroversial request. It's not actually "being discussed" there, just kinda sitting. I guess I was just surprised that it was enlisted considering the move logic and standards seemed to be fairly in the norm, and it's a frequently enough trafficked page that it wouldn't necessarily slip under the radar of those who are waiting.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 18:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Please help me sir, i think he is a vandalist and aims to crash wikipedia [ [2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urmate ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I just unblocked User:118.137.0.0/17, due to an email on the unblock mailing list. Normally, of course, I wouldn't unblock the entire range, and would deal with the individual separately instead (e.g. pointing them towards acc). But I decided to unblock here, since the block was set to expire tomorrow anyway, and I can't see how unblocking a day early will increase the potential for damage at all. If anything, it should decrease, since it brings to our attention the block expiring, which is basically what I am posting here about. Just thought you knew more about this particular vandal(s) than me, and may want to keep an eye on it, in case a reblock is necessary. - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 21:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Favonion,
I am an investor in Texas Family Magazine, a statewide family values publication, whose Wikipedia page you have been helping to protect during the past two weeks from vandalism attacks by a sock puppet. We believe this attacks are resulting from a private dispute between our ex-publisher (who is being attacked in the attack, not the magazine itself) and his wife/current boyfriend regarding custody issues and personal disputes. Each attack has preceding one of their court hearing by a day. The current publisher has requested that I contact you and req — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.62.83.242 ( talk) 17:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Favonian,
I as writing to thank you for defending our Wiki entries, Texas Fami1y and Texas Fami1y Magazine. TFM is a statewide parenting publication in Texas.
We believe that these attacks are resulting from a private dispute between the ex-publisher's ex-wife and her boyfriend, regarding custody issues and their private disputes. Each attack has preceded a court hearing by a single day, and they are clearly against our ex-publisher (Jesse) and not the magazine itself. As we expect these hearing to continue for 2-3 more months, the current publisher has requested that I ask that the padlock be extended for 2-3 more months. The current publisher can be contatced at Misha@texasfamilyonline.com for verification.
Further, we would like to request that the Texas Fami1y entry be dissolved as we are not generally referred to by this name. We had put in a request a month or two for this correction, which never occurred -- that is, our entry should simple show up under "Texas Fami1y Magazine" without any other entries or redirects. Texas Fami1y could also refer to a range of other entities including the Texas Fami1y Foundation, Texas Fami1y Law Foundation, Texas Fami1y Musicals, etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.62.83.242 ( talk) 17:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I submit a claim to arbitration on you... if you block me... 89.250.157.71 ( talk) 19:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I revert Nicosia article to start expanding its history section considering what is right or wrong discussed in the Discussion board. I am a Historian - professor in University in Erzerum. You missunderstood me my friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by FindoutNicosia ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
...for blocking Cyber 2000 promptly. bodnotbod ( talk) 13:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
Could you look at this discussion and see if it isn't time to close it? It has degenerated into canvassing [3], [4] and personal attacks. Radiopathy •talk• 17:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
There are multiple musicians with this name who have Wikipedia articles, so this needs to be a disambiguation page. The Steve Davis that is currently on the page is a drummer. I attempted to move it to Steve Davis (drummer), but that article already exists for a different person working in the same genre. I think there needs to be a consensus about what this article should be called. I find the current article title unacceptable. This person's article is briefer than many of the others, and many people may be inclined to link to it erroneously, thinking the others are too specific. -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 20:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Why am I being accused of vandalism when all I am doing is deleting horrible bile and false information that was added to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.204.235 ( talk) 10:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me? I think you need to check the history again because all I did was delete the accusations of him being a racist and the wrong transfer fee. I am a Rangers supporter and a big fan of Lafferty so if you are trying to insinuate I wrote derogatory comments you are way off the mark!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.204.235 ( talk) 10:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but there is a mistake somewhere there, why would I delete bad comments then add some more in the same post? It just does not make sense, can you check into this please. I honestly did not write those comments and being a Rangers supporter I am a bit annoyed I am being accused of it but I am telling you this now so maybe you can find the bug or whatever has done this. Please do not just be rude again as this is a genuine problem and I am even willing to prove my identity if it is need as I feel that strongly abut it.
As I said it seems a bit strange that it is saying I put those comments in at the same time as I deleted other bad ones. Could you maybe look into this please, I know you are just doing your job and going by what you see and for the record you all do a great job. Surely the fact that I am sending you this message says a lot as well, if I was just some random vandal I would not care.
Thanks,
Gary Welch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.204.235 ( talk) 10:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it and getting back to me, as i say all I was trying to do was delete the bad comments but next time I will look more closely. As you can now see it was not me that wrote those comments originally which is why I was annoyed at being called a vandal, I appreciate it was my mistake and at least now I have learned to have a closer look even when just reverting a post back to a previous edit. Perhaps you could also check things more closely next time before coming to a conclusion that the editor is a vandal, not having a dig or anything there but I am sure you can understand why I was a bit annoyed as clearly I never fully understood how things worked and clearly it was not me that orginally wrote the offending words.
Thanks for taking the time to get back to me and have a good day :)
Gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.204.235 ( talk) 10:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Please accept my most humble, sincere apologies, I was only working with my peers in attempts to block my school from editing Wikipedia AS A JOKE!! Tombuk1 ( talk) 10:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello great knowledgeable One
In which English is 'fuze' the correct spelling for 'fuse'???
Graham 58.165.76.181 ( talk) 10:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
FUZE Actually only Canadian English. Not GA nor UK nor SA nor Aus nor NZ Englishes. He who thinks 'any English you like' is WRONG. Get out of Wpd and join the WORLD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.6.177 ( talk) 03:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Noticed that you blocked Jneil, but is it really appropriate that Jneil gets blocked for being litigious? Seems like it was something he just said in the heat of the moment and he will take it back. And then he will evade all the other charges that he is guilty of like(quoting Admin JamesBWatson) "disruptive editing, including personal attacks, removal of all content from articles, edit warring, attempting to exert control over articles, violation of the policy on neutral point of view, and using Wikipedia for promotion".
I have another question regarding Jneil. I have no interest in starting a personal war with him digging through all his contributions(I've had enough with it from two articles already) but I have noticed that he only have edited/created articles he somehow had a personal stake in, and he was in a COI-dispute on the article for agorism as well where other editors said he hijacked the article trying to make him look more important in the movement than he was. At the least I would like to put the COI-label on it. But is it really appropriate that I continue to clean up Jneils mess(cause at this point I must be pretty biased) and could you perhaps look into it(I'm pretty new on Wikipedia and don't really now the etiquettes how to post on admin boards etc)? Or should I just put the COI label on the agorism article and let somebody else sort it out? Cheers! CassanovaFrankenstein ( talk) 18:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Could you block User:115.241.247.223 for block evasion? In this diff xe admits to being the same person who you just blocked. Qwyrxian ( talk)
Hello. I'm HannibalBarcaXXI, and you recently indefinitely blocked my account (IP:178.53.90.113) for 'Multiple Accounts'. I would like to know where have I abused Wikipedia and used multiple accounts? I can't access my page, and can't do anything at all. Please lift the block immediately, because I'm innocent.
HB21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.53.90.113 ( talk) 13:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bokan995. I am at a loss to understand why this editor isn't blocked yet. I don't want to have to do it myself, but ... Black Kite (t) (c) 18:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I was watching this article and noticed two IP address that were blanking the page. I checked the WHOIS and I think there is sock puppetry taking place. Is it necessary to report it to WP:SPI? I decided to ask you because you're the administrator who protected the article. Thank you. -- Luke (Talk) 20:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Ezekiel! Talk to meh. See what I'm doin'. 21:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
149.140.34.124 . Thanks. Chesdovi ( talk) 18:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The previously blocked vandalist IP has indeed resurrected, check this lad [5], compared to previous star [6]. Greyshark09 ( talk) 18:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you
assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Dear Favonian,
It is with a good deal of regret that I find myself to write to you to explain my displeasure which, by your intervention, has but only increased, however you have chosen to leave me with no alternative but to put an end to my silence. Your gross and potentially deliberate (although deliberate in good faith) misunderstanding of the situation has now only inflamed a minor issue into an exposition of the rot that takes place when good men keep quiet. Perhaps, to begin with you should read this rather handy little guide to etiquette before the thought of giving any sort of response enters your head:
However, this is quite aside from our issue. My main issue is now not factual inaccuracies, but indeed your misunderstanding of the concept of a user page. You referred to the user page User:ModWilson as his "home page". However, the article Wikipedia:User_pages, which, I hasten to add, bears greater authority than yourself in such matters, states that "[User pages] are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user". This is in direct conflict with all the implications and insinuations of your message regarding user pages. If you claim the authority of justice, of banning and blocking, then you must learn to wield this power with a sense of responsibility and accountability before the community. You have, with all in good faith, made no attempt to understand the difficult situation or resolve it fairly and justly, but have twisted your alleged authority to suit your own ends (in good faith). My original edits, which you heavily implied constituted harassment (thereby refuting Wikipedia's great policy of good faith), were in fact made with the good intention of improving the project. As the article Wikipedia:User_pages states, "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful." My edits were minor and not substantial, and they were most certainly with the intention of facilitating the project, especially those good editors working on the French Wikipedia who rely on integrity in the Babel Userboxes pertaining to French. However, where is integrity in the French userbox of ModWilson? He has no such skill in the French language and by making a claim to possess this skill which he has not, he is hindering the efforts of myself and other good editors. You also understand some French, I understand. Try a simple conversation with him about this current situation in French, and the falsehood (made in good faith) will become all too clear.
I am relatively new to Wikipedia. I came here hoping to find the values of assumption of good faith here that I had read so widely about. Instead I have been now confronted by both ModWilson and yourself, neither of whom has attempted to perceive the good faith in my actions and neither of whom seems to have any intention to follow any aspect of Wikipedia's etiquette policy. Should you be doubting whether my issue is truly worth your time, I call to your attention these simple principles of "Wikiquette":
I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that I dislike your tone. I feel your tone was deliberately aggressive, abrasive and non-constructive. Please try to follow The Golden Rule in all future correspondences. SRESQ ( talk) 11:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Great work identifying the people in the Yalta image! Perhaps you should update the commons page on it too? ( Hohum @) 17:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Detective Barnstar | |
For tracking down all of those elusive officers in the Yalta image. |
sure thks for the block i called ,,,you need to block two steps back..... as per my last pasge thks -- Bioplus ( talk) 16:34, 30 August 2011 (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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
sorry to bother, you but this 'birkenhead drishyakala' article is about a chenda band who was in the news of .co.uk last week since it's an online news paper the article that i created is within the policies of wikipedia. please undo what you have done
yours faithfully divine Alexabraham22da ( talk) 15:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thanks for the replay
Alexabraham22da (
talk)
15:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
SwisterTwister has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
†
|
I hope you enjoy this cupcake as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 19:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm a new user to Wiki. I became a user because I use Wikipedia a lot and often see missing or incorrect info. on topics that I may know something about.
The first correction I made was flagged by you as vandalism but I can assure you it is not misuse or incorrect:
In the Mel Brooks film "Robin Hood: Men in Tights," the character portrayed by Alan Rickman is not the Sheriff of Nottingham but the "Sheriff of Rottingham" (a pun on the Robin Hood character).
Classicalib ( talk) 22:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm an idiot. I should have known that wasn't Alan Rickman. I was looking at two pages in a short period of time and corrected the wrong one. What I said about the film "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" was correct but Alan Rickman is in "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves." Thanks for catching my ridiculous mistake!
Classicalib ( talk) 23:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Well spotted: User:Divineabrahamda is actually the puppeteer, and Alexabraham22da is just one of his puppets. Should I rename the SPI? Thanks, Gurt Posh ( talk) 11:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
What part of the page breaches copy right?
thank you,
Luke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Bonathan ( talk • contribs) 10:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not looking to advertise or breach any copyright violations. Once I have created the page as desired in my area (I will use your company info box and shorten the history and make it look pretty) how do I then move it to the general area of Wikipedia? Should I contact you for approval? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.255.154 ( talk) 16:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you think it is ready for the main site now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Luke_Bonathan/Amano_Corporation#Profile
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Bonathan ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
For blocking those incredibly troublesome Christ Church Grammar School vandals, and semi-protecting the article. Metricopolus ( talk) 13:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Favonian, I have decided to ask for your help as you previously blocked a person who used sockpuppets, and I think he might be back. Someone who has not edited anywhere as far as I can see on Wiki has messaged me to ask for help, and that makes me wonder why me, as I am probably, in the whole Wiki experience, rather hard to find. I spend most of my time playing around with little hamlets and villages in Lincolnshire. This person User_talk:Kkumar123 has approached me, on both my page and his own, and previously I was contacted by User_talk:Brattley 36 who was a sockpuppet of User talk:Crouch, Swale. Many thanks if you can check that out. Panderoona ( talk) 16:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking the above, would you mind revdel his edits to my talk page please. Mt king (edits) 09:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
For your continued co-operation in reverting POV edits on K2 and Kashmiri related entries. Qwrk ( talk) 17:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
The real club name is Al Ahly not Al Ahly S.C. and Wikipedia do not let me do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzizoo ( talk • contribs) 08:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Minor barnstar |
This is the suckup barnstar, for defending an asshole Wikipedian for no real reason! Good job defending the status quo! X883 ( talk) 08:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
Pest control activities much appreciated :) JRPG ( talk) 22:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like another opinion on a page protection I did and I think needs replacing - you'll need to see my talk page to understand. Dougweller ( talk) 13:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting back my talk page. It is time an admin steps in here, because one does not know the rules and is creating trouble and another knows the rules very well and he is damaging a whole group of articles with cited arguments on the lead sections. Hoverfish Talk 18:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I am doing some research into members of the London County Council - will update Wikipedia as appropriate. The question is - as Henry Percy Harris is a historical person and a presumably different person whose page has been deleted, what will be the situation when I get enough to write about the LCC person? (I can make use of Londonwiki as an intermediary if appropriate). Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! Can you impose temporary semi-protection on that article which appears to be persistently vandalized by an anonimous user? Regards, -- Gligan ( talk) 09:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Reaper Eternal ( talk) 19:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
That user appears to be a sock of User:Idealisis, who created another sock ( User:Milordass), as another vandalism-only account. Milordass just became active again as soon as IownKudzu was blocked. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 22:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I observe that you blocked this address one month ago, and the editor at that time was systematically changing "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic". I observed as soon as the block expired the editor resumed the behavior, making nonsensical changes, and turning valid "See also" links into red links. Considering that the editor has long-term access to this IP, I view it as the same as a registered account. I suggest an indefinite block. Jc3s5h ( talk) 03:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there; you recently blocked this editor for removing obscenity from another editor's talk page. I would concede that he should not have done so. It seems that this editor and his wife ( user:82.11.178.239) have both been editing the same articles, and both are currently blocked; the IP by Fastily. They are clearly guilty of meatpuppetry (not, I think, sock) and of lack of understanding of wikipedia policy as it relates to user talk pages and to the absence of censorship here; I do wonder if the error is one of ignorance rather than deliberate disruption? Could I ask you to re-visit it and consider? -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 19:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I've been away from Wikipedia for a bit. Yes, I did indeed request a rename. I've redirected the pages to the new name, though there may be some utility to better fix it. Sowsnek ( talk) 21:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I sent an unblock email, but I haven't received a response (Sent on Sunday). 98.219.123.213 ( talk) 11:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Favonian, have you looked into this? I don't mean to be annoying, but... 98.219.123.213 ( talk) 20:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Favonian? 98.219.123.213 ( talk) 00:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I reccently found you vandilized the article Brony and your edits have been undone. -- 80.78.77.224 ( talk) 20:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
You blocked Herbolzheim, giving the reason in the block log as "Disruptive editing: same as User talk:82.11.178.239". Following discussion at User talk:82.11.178.239 and consultation with the administrator who blocked that IP ( Fastily), the IP has been unblocked. Usually I consult the blocking admin before unblocking, but in this case I decided that there was no point in keeping the account blocked once the IP was open for the user to edit from, so I have unblocked the account too. I hope that is OK with you, but please tell me if you have any objection. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. This is all a bit confusing to me still. Wtfsvi ( talk) 11:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Favonian! I notice that you blocked this charming fellow the other day, and I'm pretty sure that 94.4.123.182 ( talk · contribs) and 94.2.177.166 ( talk · contribs) are more IPs used by this person - they all use Easynet out of London and all are harassing the user TreasuryTag. At the very least, the first IP mentioned should share a one-week block for personal attacks/harassment for calling me a "interfering moron" who needs to "get a life". [1] He's clearly only here to harass, and is probably a blocked user. Just thought I'd let you know. Cheers :> Doc talk 01:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Favonian - I just saw your warning to me regarding vandalism. I'd like to discuss and clear the air. Cheers, RealAuroraGuy RealAuroraGuy ( talk) 16:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Guilty as charged. A friend of mine was being insulted unfairly, and I tried to right the wrong, albiet poorly. The comment removals were based on a long story about a town divided by a very strange set of events involving blogging pains, protecting the rights of anonymity, and a very vindictive ex-mayor - but, it's a long story. In my (only) defence, I was brand new to Wiki, and didn't take the time to read the rules before I started changing things. I know them now. For what it's worth, I have a great deal of respect for democracy and rules, especially in cyberspace. I appreciate good debate and try to never make it personal - most of the time, anyway. Mea culpa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealAuroraGuy ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Out of interest, what was the rationale here? To call the move arguments weak would be an understatement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
{{COI|date=August 2011}}{{POV-lead|date=August 2011}}{{format footnotes|date=August 2011}}{{Copy edit|date=August 2011}}{{Expert-subject|date=August 2011}} {{Use British English|date=August 2011}}
(cur | prev) 10:47, 7 August 2011 89.211.50.131 (talk) (16,953 bytes) (undo)
(cur | prev) 10:26, 7 August 2011 Favonian (talk | contribs) (17,129 bytes) (rm incorrectly used {{ shortcut}}) (undo)
(cur | prev) 10:23, 7 August 2011 Favonian (talk | contribs) (17,152 bytes) (Reverted 9 edits by 89.211.50.131 (talk): Admin tags removed without addressing issues. (TW)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 06:50, 7 August 2011 89.211.50.131 (talk) (16,953 bytes) (→Arabian Plate) (undo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)&action=history
JohnLloydScharf ( talk) 12:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not collapsing anything. I am not editing the article or the Discussion page unless there is at least a Silver Lock on it. The topic of Haplogroup is complex. Haplogroup R seems to have a page for every sub-haplogroup and every individual family has a sub-haplogroup. Haplogroup J is one of the youngest and most of it is at the edge of antiquity, as opposed to pre-historic. Every issue becomes a Jihad/Crusade conflict. I just wanted to put together all that we know in one place and it has turned into a Voyage to La Puta. Having eight hours of yeoman like work trashed in 15 minutes is enough.
JohnLloydScharf (
talk)
17:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
It is the same one from the same company at the same hotel in Qatar. http://toolserver.org/~chm/whois.php?ip=78.101.35.243 He did not even edit out the text. He just reverts it. You are engaged in a Sisyphean task until a Silver Lock is put on the article.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)
I do not respect personal attacks, tolerate antisocial behavior, or push rocks up hill well. I am just going to monitor the behavior of this unsigned vandal and whether
User:Andrew_Lancaster takes steps to deal with it. Until then, my editing is done.
JohnLloydScharf (
talk)
21:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
He, she or it is toying with the Discussions as well:
(cur | prev) 20:02, 7 August 2011 78.101.35.243 (talk) (69,132 bytes) (→Map depicts J1 M267*G variant rather than being a map of J1 Haplogroup in general.) (undo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)&action=history
JohnLloydScharf (
talk)
22:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
1 List of Vandals
2 178.152.109.94 Range:178.152.0.0 - 178.152.127.255
3 78.101.34.219 Range: 78.101.32.0 - 78.101.63.255
4 78.101.53.167 Range: 78.101.32.0 - 78.101.63.255
5 178.152.109.94 Range: 178.152.0.0 - 178.152.127.255
6 78.100.170.235 Range:'78.100.160.0 - 78.100.191.255'
7 178.152.109.94 Range:178.152.0.0 - 178.152.127.255
8 89.211.50.131 Range: 89.211.50.128 - 89.211.50.143
9 78.101.34.219 Range: 78.101.32.0 - 78.101.63.255
10 78.101.35.243 Range:78.101.32.0 - 78.101.63.255
JohnLloydScharf (
talk)
22:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Favonian. Considering that:
I don't see how a continued, lengthy block is of benefit to the project. Could I ask you take another look and consider unblocking or shortening the block duration? Thank you, Swarm u | t 22:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that you have deleted the Lucien Laviscount page in the past. I have now re-written this page to prove that it passes Wikipedia's notability rules. Please could you view the page in the link below and copy it into the Lucien Laviscount space? I would do it myself, but unregistered and newly registered Wikipedians are, apparently, unable to do this. Thank you
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=445681110
188.220.151.140 ( talk) 15:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
If I withdrew the request for a move at Timothy Michael Dolan, then could I submit it as an uncontroversial request. It's not actually "being discussed" there, just kinda sitting. I guess I was just surprised that it was enlisted considering the move logic and standards seemed to be fairly in the norm, and it's a frequently enough trafficked page that it wouldn't necessarily slip under the radar of those who are waiting.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 18:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Please help me sir, i think he is a vandalist and aims to crash wikipedia [ [2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urmate ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I just unblocked User:118.137.0.0/17, due to an email on the unblock mailing list. Normally, of course, I wouldn't unblock the entire range, and would deal with the individual separately instead (e.g. pointing them towards acc). But I decided to unblock here, since the block was set to expire tomorrow anyway, and I can't see how unblocking a day early will increase the potential for damage at all. If anything, it should decrease, since it brings to our attention the block expiring, which is basically what I am posting here about. Just thought you knew more about this particular vandal(s) than me, and may want to keep an eye on it, in case a reblock is necessary. - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 21:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Favonion,
I am an investor in Texas Family Magazine, a statewide family values publication, whose Wikipedia page you have been helping to protect during the past two weeks from vandalism attacks by a sock puppet. We believe this attacks are resulting from a private dispute between our ex-publisher (who is being attacked in the attack, not the magazine itself) and his wife/current boyfriend regarding custody issues and personal disputes. Each attack has preceding one of their court hearing by a day. The current publisher has requested that I contact you and req — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.62.83.242 ( talk) 17:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Favonian,
I as writing to thank you for defending our Wiki entries, Texas Fami1y and Texas Fami1y Magazine. TFM is a statewide parenting publication in Texas.
We believe that these attacks are resulting from a private dispute between the ex-publisher's ex-wife and her boyfriend, regarding custody issues and their private disputes. Each attack has preceded a court hearing by a single day, and they are clearly against our ex-publisher (Jesse) and not the magazine itself. As we expect these hearing to continue for 2-3 more months, the current publisher has requested that I ask that the padlock be extended for 2-3 more months. The current publisher can be contatced at Misha@texasfamilyonline.com for verification.
Further, we would like to request that the Texas Fami1y entry be dissolved as we are not generally referred to by this name. We had put in a request a month or two for this correction, which never occurred -- that is, our entry should simple show up under "Texas Fami1y Magazine" without any other entries or redirects. Texas Fami1y could also refer to a range of other entities including the Texas Fami1y Foundation, Texas Fami1y Law Foundation, Texas Fami1y Musicals, etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.62.83.242 ( talk) 17:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I submit a claim to arbitration on you... if you block me... 89.250.157.71 ( talk) 19:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I revert Nicosia article to start expanding its history section considering what is right or wrong discussed in the Discussion board. I am a Historian - professor in University in Erzerum. You missunderstood me my friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by FindoutNicosia ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
...for blocking Cyber 2000 promptly. bodnotbod ( talk) 13:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
Could you look at this discussion and see if it isn't time to close it? It has degenerated into canvassing [3], [4] and personal attacks. Radiopathy •talk• 17:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
There are multiple musicians with this name who have Wikipedia articles, so this needs to be a disambiguation page. The Steve Davis that is currently on the page is a drummer. I attempted to move it to Steve Davis (drummer), but that article already exists for a different person working in the same genre. I think there needs to be a consensus about what this article should be called. I find the current article title unacceptable. This person's article is briefer than many of the others, and many people may be inclined to link to it erroneously, thinking the others are too specific. -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 20:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Why am I being accused of vandalism when all I am doing is deleting horrible bile and false information that was added to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.204.235 ( talk) 10:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me? I think you need to check the history again because all I did was delete the accusations of him being a racist and the wrong transfer fee. I am a Rangers supporter and a big fan of Lafferty so if you are trying to insinuate I wrote derogatory comments you are way off the mark!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.204.235 ( talk) 10:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but there is a mistake somewhere there, why would I delete bad comments then add some more in the same post? It just does not make sense, can you check into this please. I honestly did not write those comments and being a Rangers supporter I am a bit annoyed I am being accused of it but I am telling you this now so maybe you can find the bug or whatever has done this. Please do not just be rude again as this is a genuine problem and I am even willing to prove my identity if it is need as I feel that strongly abut it.
As I said it seems a bit strange that it is saying I put those comments in at the same time as I deleted other bad ones. Could you maybe look into this please, I know you are just doing your job and going by what you see and for the record you all do a great job. Surely the fact that I am sending you this message says a lot as well, if I was just some random vandal I would not care.
Thanks,
Gary Welch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.204.235 ( talk) 10:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it and getting back to me, as i say all I was trying to do was delete the bad comments but next time I will look more closely. As you can now see it was not me that wrote those comments originally which is why I was annoyed at being called a vandal, I appreciate it was my mistake and at least now I have learned to have a closer look even when just reverting a post back to a previous edit. Perhaps you could also check things more closely next time before coming to a conclusion that the editor is a vandal, not having a dig or anything there but I am sure you can understand why I was a bit annoyed as clearly I never fully understood how things worked and clearly it was not me that orginally wrote the offending words.
Thanks for taking the time to get back to me and have a good day :)
Gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.204.235 ( talk) 10:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Please accept my most humble, sincere apologies, I was only working with my peers in attempts to block my school from editing Wikipedia AS A JOKE!! Tombuk1 ( talk) 10:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello great knowledgeable One
In which English is 'fuze' the correct spelling for 'fuse'???
Graham 58.165.76.181 ( talk) 10:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
FUZE Actually only Canadian English. Not GA nor UK nor SA nor Aus nor NZ Englishes. He who thinks 'any English you like' is WRONG. Get out of Wpd and join the WORLD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.6.177 ( talk) 03:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Noticed that you blocked Jneil, but is it really appropriate that Jneil gets blocked for being litigious? Seems like it was something he just said in the heat of the moment and he will take it back. And then he will evade all the other charges that he is guilty of like(quoting Admin JamesBWatson) "disruptive editing, including personal attacks, removal of all content from articles, edit warring, attempting to exert control over articles, violation of the policy on neutral point of view, and using Wikipedia for promotion".
I have another question regarding Jneil. I have no interest in starting a personal war with him digging through all his contributions(I've had enough with it from two articles already) but I have noticed that he only have edited/created articles he somehow had a personal stake in, and he was in a COI-dispute on the article for agorism as well where other editors said he hijacked the article trying to make him look more important in the movement than he was. At the least I would like to put the COI-label on it. But is it really appropriate that I continue to clean up Jneils mess(cause at this point I must be pretty biased) and could you perhaps look into it(I'm pretty new on Wikipedia and don't really now the etiquettes how to post on admin boards etc)? Or should I just put the COI label on the agorism article and let somebody else sort it out? Cheers! CassanovaFrankenstein ( talk) 18:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Could you block User:115.241.247.223 for block evasion? In this diff xe admits to being the same person who you just blocked. Qwyrxian ( talk)
Hello. I'm HannibalBarcaXXI, and you recently indefinitely blocked my account (IP:178.53.90.113) for 'Multiple Accounts'. I would like to know where have I abused Wikipedia and used multiple accounts? I can't access my page, and can't do anything at all. Please lift the block immediately, because I'm innocent.
HB21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.53.90.113 ( talk) 13:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bokan995. I am at a loss to understand why this editor isn't blocked yet. I don't want to have to do it myself, but ... Black Kite (t) (c) 18:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I was watching this article and noticed two IP address that were blanking the page. I checked the WHOIS and I think there is sock puppetry taking place. Is it necessary to report it to WP:SPI? I decided to ask you because you're the administrator who protected the article. Thank you. -- Luke (Talk) 20:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Ezekiel! Talk to meh. See what I'm doin'. 21:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
149.140.34.124 . Thanks. Chesdovi ( talk) 18:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The previously blocked vandalist IP has indeed resurrected, check this lad [5], compared to previous star [6]. Greyshark09 ( talk) 18:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you
assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Dear Favonian,
It is with a good deal of regret that I find myself to write to you to explain my displeasure which, by your intervention, has but only increased, however you have chosen to leave me with no alternative but to put an end to my silence. Your gross and potentially deliberate (although deliberate in good faith) misunderstanding of the situation has now only inflamed a minor issue into an exposition of the rot that takes place when good men keep quiet. Perhaps, to begin with you should read this rather handy little guide to etiquette before the thought of giving any sort of response enters your head:
However, this is quite aside from our issue. My main issue is now not factual inaccuracies, but indeed your misunderstanding of the concept of a user page. You referred to the user page User:ModWilson as his "home page". However, the article Wikipedia:User_pages, which, I hasten to add, bears greater authority than yourself in such matters, states that "[User pages] are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user". This is in direct conflict with all the implications and insinuations of your message regarding user pages. If you claim the authority of justice, of banning and blocking, then you must learn to wield this power with a sense of responsibility and accountability before the community. You have, with all in good faith, made no attempt to understand the difficult situation or resolve it fairly and justly, but have twisted your alleged authority to suit your own ends (in good faith). My original edits, which you heavily implied constituted harassment (thereby refuting Wikipedia's great policy of good faith), were in fact made with the good intention of improving the project. As the article Wikipedia:User_pages states, "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful." My edits were minor and not substantial, and they were most certainly with the intention of facilitating the project, especially those good editors working on the French Wikipedia who rely on integrity in the Babel Userboxes pertaining to French. However, where is integrity in the French userbox of ModWilson? He has no such skill in the French language and by making a claim to possess this skill which he has not, he is hindering the efforts of myself and other good editors. You also understand some French, I understand. Try a simple conversation with him about this current situation in French, and the falsehood (made in good faith) will become all too clear.
I am relatively new to Wikipedia. I came here hoping to find the values of assumption of good faith here that I had read so widely about. Instead I have been now confronted by both ModWilson and yourself, neither of whom has attempted to perceive the good faith in my actions and neither of whom seems to have any intention to follow any aspect of Wikipedia's etiquette policy. Should you be doubting whether my issue is truly worth your time, I call to your attention these simple principles of "Wikiquette":
I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that I dislike your tone. I feel your tone was deliberately aggressive, abrasive and non-constructive. Please try to follow The Golden Rule in all future correspondences. SRESQ ( talk) 11:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Great work identifying the people in the Yalta image! Perhaps you should update the commons page on it too? ( Hohum @) 17:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Detective Barnstar | |
For tracking down all of those elusive officers in the Yalta image. |
sure thks for the block i called ,,,you need to block two steps back..... as per my last pasge thks -- Bioplus ( talk) 16:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)