User:Master of Puppets/Archhead User:Master of Puppets/Header
|
![]() If you wish to revitalize an archived discussion, please copy and paste all text, formatting included, to the bottom of my talk page. Thanks! |
This game has been reviewed by almost every major gaming site (IGN, Gamespot, Play Magazine, GamePro, PSM, Games Radar, Game Informer, Gamespy, G4TV, etc.), so how is it not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? Most PSP gamers who play SRPGs or import games have heard of Aedis Eclipse. Unless you're going to also delete Generation of Chaos, Spectral Souls, and any other game that you personally hadn't heard of before (and suggest that everyone else do the same), then Aedis Eclipse belongs on Wikipedia too.
Please, please, please do a little more research on the topic of a page before you delete it for lack of notability. I'm so tired of finding pages (especially ones that had valuable information others put time into writing) deleted for not meeting Wikipedia's "notability" requirement by someone who is simply not qualified to make that judgment. I mean, you don't need to be an astrophysicist to judge whether or not a page on an astrophysics concept is notable enough to be in Wikipedia. But you should at the very least consult someone who has studied, or is an authority on, astrophysics before making the decision to delete the page.
If more people would do this, then topics as Aedis Eclipse or ComboFix wouldn't constantly get deleted by those completely clueless about the topic.-- Subversive Sound ( talk) 05:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
You have speedy-deleted the following image on the grounds of being unfree and unused for more than 7 days:
This image has not been unused for more than 7 days. Remco47 ( talk) 10:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Unblock Hello, What a great page. I just signed in to thank you for taking care of my what I believed to be block and alerting me to the fact that I might not have been signed in (very likely) lumenlitt Lumenlitt ( talk) 10:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Excuse my bothering you but your actions at the AFD seem increasingly improper. You relisted the discussion, saying "people are clearly divided on this". This seemed improper because a discussion on which editors are clearly divided should be closed as no consensus. I let that pass but now you are contributing to the debate and seem to be urging a particular conclusion. This gives the impression that you are manipulating the process to achieve your preferred result. Please reconsider your actions. Colonel Warden ( talk) 17:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
LOL! -- I am lennin!wioe ( talk) 23:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This is way overdue. Too much dessert isn't good for you! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 02:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I have suggested int e past and again that because the subject which the edit warring and problem reside are so touchy due to rivarly between both fans then it best to take it to medation and allow them to set out rules on what to include and what not to and how mcuh shoudl be there. Because the oen adding stuff have admitted there celtic fans but i trust they are acting with no due biased but rangers fans dnt then it causing lots of problems because the rangers look at the celtic article adn see very little but then look at the rangers article and see a lot and when ever they try to add to teh celtic it gets removed but when they try to remove from the rangers ti gets reverted. so you are gettigna big fight of wars over a very touchy subject. so would this be best taking to aneutral peopel who ahve no invloment in and there ecision would probally be better accepted.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 16:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi MoP I was wondering if you could tell me what
this would fall under as a candidate for speedy deletion, it's obviously not a real word and Wikipedia is not a dictionary but I don't think it would fall under patent nonsense either. Words of wisdom?
Jeffrey Mall (
talk •
contribs) -
17:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I had thought that you had locked the article on Mary Baker Eddy until November 9. The Vandal that had been editing it User:SatansHelper666 has reappeared and has edited the page. How is this possible? Sorry to be a bother. -- Digitalican ( talk) 09:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey its Lenin, so whats up? -- I am lennin!wioe ( talk) 23:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings Master of Puppets. At the beginning of the year you blocked User talk:124.105.97.207. Please consider a longer block next time round.-- Technopat ( talk) 05:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you should check my contributions before accusing me of edit warring. I've only ever edited the page in question twice and once was to fix an error I made the first time. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: [1]: User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this comment [2] - intentionally or not, you did in fact chose a "preferred version". I'm going to copy my comment on T:GP to this place, since you appear not to have read it:
As you can see, there is a very good reason for people stating that you chose a "preferred version". -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 18:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You should also know that Connoley has basically been rewarded for edit-warring, with his "under-the-wire" edit, right before you protected it. If we're going with "status quo when you arrived", that edit should be reverted, right? U A 18:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Guitarherochristopher Has A Question For You To Answer: Want To Create The Animated .GIF Advertisement For The Alternative Music Wikiproject?
(((
(GU!TARH3R0
:
CHR!ST0PHER) )))
02:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you please check how discussion is being blocked on the Inflation talk page. Thank you. PennySeven ( talk) 16:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at this and putting in your two cents worth. I am tired of fighting with this new user. Thanks! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 04:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
please move the malia discussion back to AN because the move prevents me from discussing it (cannot write on that page).
Also the discussion is on the discussion page of another article (Family of...) which is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 ( talk • contribs) 04:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your change. It is 1000% easier to leave a comment on that ANI section than to keep going back to that article to restore it. Now I can leave the comment and see if others want to restore it or not. Really, they should. There are so many unknown people with articles and Malia has —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Does the topic ban need to be logged at WP:RESTRICT? Mjroots ( talk) 12:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Rather than locking the page, or in addition to it, I would ask that you sanction this editor for his continuing disruptive behaviour. He still seems to think that his editwarring, twice breaking 4 reverts in 48 hours, and his grossly insulting comments are justified. An educational and preventative block would be in order, per the editwarring and gross incivility. This would also allow the page to be unblocked so that other editors who are now involved can continue to improve the article. Verbal chat 14:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
ANI Notice: Please have a look at Wikipedia:ANI#Verbal_and_Colloidal_Silver. The above shows I have acted properly despite baiting, provocation, misleading cimments, abuse etc by these two known problem editors. Verbal chat 08:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Would be nice to get responses. You should watch the pages you come in and lock, as often the users that are the most frequent contributors at those articles have comments. In my case I'm requesting the pre-edit war version be locked as then the fly-by-editors who made the controversial changes would actually be enticed to comment and form consensus for those changes. I'd also appreciate a response at my talk page regarding my first/final warning from you, which I feel was inappropriate given the situation that you were not fully aware of (and come to think of it, acted upon without a single communication with me, only Verbal). Thank you - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Your mentee, Pennyseven, is posting profusely on the Inflation talk page again. Could you ask him to keep the wikidrama in his edits to a minimum? It reads like someone trying to intimidate other people away from the debate. At the least, it's unnecessary wikidrama that makes the editing atmosphere unpleasant.
Also, to clarify, I never at any time suggested that disagreeing with me was edit warring. The only message I left related to edit warring was the message I left informing him of my intent to revert his changes and why I was doing so. I ended (perhaps inappropriately) with a request that he not revert my changes and start an edit war, as the result would be the same (since his changes are opposed by the members of the Econ wikiproject). I never said that disagreeing with me was edit warring. PS has a history of misreporting things like that.
thanks, LK ( talk) 11:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Note that both Lawrence and Jacurek have become adept in getting their way by appealing directly to admins. It seems to have happened again in a content dispute that involved two admins, here. To both Some and Master, this is a content dispute that was being handled properly on the talk page of No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron with both parties at fault but Varsovian at least had a semblance of contrition and made efforts to discuss relevant topics. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 12:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Excellent User Page Award | |
I feel that I absolutely MUST give you this barnstar. I love how your userpage looks. Very clean looking. Looks perfect for my eyes. Ilyushka88 talk 12:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC) |
User:CarolMoore seems to have an issue with the Wikipedia consensus on the Gilad Atzmon article. She is determined to turn the article into an apology and advertisement for Mr. Atzmon. She's asked several editors on noticeboards to help her, and then reverted away their edits when they made the article adhere to guidelines. I've edited the article consistently for the past months, keeping it in line with Wikipedia policy. As a result, she has campaigned tirelessly, and fruitlessly to have me banned. However as said before, the real issue is that she does not accept the edits of any other Wikieditors, and is determined to turn the article on Gilad Atzmon into an NPOV advertisement. This has been noted by others as well. But the issue is the article, and getting it right, and making sure it stays right. Drsmoo ( talk) 14:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Also to my knowledge, there is no reliable source which calls Atzmon an Anti-semite for his statements on Israel or Zionism, rather it is for his statements on Judaism. Drsmoo ( talk) 11:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321461856&oldid=321458823, http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321642476&oldid=321642088
Not sure why my post is coming in gray...
<backdent>I'll be happy to see any response from them. SlimVirgin and Hipocrite basically agreed the Politics section should be shorter than much longer section. SlimVirgin made a very short version which I critiqued but she didn't respond at all. Hipocrite's only opinion on my proposal to use a draft page an admin set up after the article was protected was that it should be shorter. So I did in fact put up a short version with some updates.
The issue is that Drsmoo continues to put out of context, poorly sourced quotes and opinions in, while taking out NPOV material that he thinks defends Atzmon, to make Atzmon look bad. In the past he frequently has inserted his SOAPBOX opinion that Atzmon is an evil person who the wikipedia article must expose. After he was [ |advised against doing that] he's been more circumspect on talk page. But it remains clear that making Atzmon look bad is his intent and it ticks me off an editor is allowed to push a POV in a BLP where there already has been an OTRS complaint by the subject.
Process wise, I'd go to Wikipedia:Third_opinion but doesn't seem to have much action. I assume you are experienced in mediation so we don't have to request one more formally? Thanks. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
<backdent> Just in case Puppet Master intends to get involved, here's my list of most recent complaints about BLP violations. If you are too busy or already too burned out on this, maybe I should just bring the most relevant ones back to the BLP page. Please mention that no mediation happened or whatever on the 3rr page if you aren't interested. Thanks. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 03:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm still watching, Carol, and I still intend to mediate (I've got experience with it, so no worries). Obviously, if you'd like to pursue another venue of resolution regardless, I'm all for that. Anyway, I've been trying to fish SlimVirgin and Hipocrite out of hiding, as their comment is needed; I'm not going to analyze content any further, as things tend to get complicated when admins do so. I wouldn't be biased, but analyzing it could give somebody fodder to state that I've got a bias, at which point I'm no longer an effective mediator.
That being said, there's a lot here which is complicating things; I hope some of the following requests won't be too taxing. I'd do it myself, but the more I read through exhaustive amounts of text, the less this becomes mediation and more a third opinion (mediation is helping you guys figure it out, while a third opinion wouldn't really do that).
I'll add in more as I keep examining. Master of Puppets 08:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
<backdent>Took a day's break; glad to see you are still with us :-) Current issues as described
in recent talk page and elsewheres:
1. Already brought this issue to WP:RS Noticeboard
here - THIS specific question of which source and context to use for the quote had NOT been replied to at all except by Drsmoo, so there is no consensus on it yet:
Note that the only respondent on WP:RS Noticeboard didn't think either WP:RS, while Drsmoo discouraged conversation by throwing up his usual smokescreen of how I'm allegedly against consensus, when
2. Drsmoo continues writing: "Several of Atzmon's statements regarding "Jewishness" have triggered allegations of antisemitism." (Originally he put in "Judaism.") However the two sources immediately after the sentence say more than that: Gilchrest mentions both Atzmon's anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel and Gibson mentions specifically criticism of Israel and what happens to people who criticize of Zionism (i.e., clearly he means people like Atzmon). Obviously he is misusing sources to push his hobby horse that Atzmon is against Jews/Judaism. (What ex-Israeli IDF member Atzmon says is complicated and easy to distort with short out of context sentences.)
This is a clear abuse of use of sources.
3. Use of link to The Paranoid Style in American Politics from Cohen's quote on "paranoid mentality" seems a POV, WP:Undue stretch, especially since this is British politics.
4. Drsmoo deleted a quote in defense of Atzmon I'd shortened for shortness sake. He then removed it and claimed it was irrelevant since didn't mention Atzmon. So this morning I put whole quote in mentioning Atzmon. We'll see if he reverts that. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 13:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
<backdent>Considering that they have not responded in 10 days, I'd say it's unlikely they will respond. And remember I picked apart SlimVirgin's version for various BLP violations when she originally put it up (as I did Drsmoo's slightly altered version), so maybe neither of them are interested in pursuing the various issues further. Since you obviously are having connection problems, and since the current version which Drsmoo kept reverting back to (thus my 3RR complaint) violates Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise, how about I just put up the two versions, plus a link to my criticisms diff of it on the BLP Noticeboard. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 00:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
??Who is everyone, besides you?? Please supply diffs or stop with your accusations. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 19:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
<backdent>If you do not want to comment on policy, especially in a BLP situation, it would seem WP:BLPN is the best place to go. Repeatedly asking editors who perhaps showed only a temporary interest doesn't seem to be working. (User:SlimVirgin has removed your query from her talk page; did she answer it at all? Same with other editor you contacted.) Other editors interested in BLP policy might well respond to a specific listing of issues which I have listed repeatedly at the BLPN. Asking editors to choose between two versions, ignoring the many very specific policy disputes I have with the first version, which the authoring editor never bothered to answer, obviously is not a very effective mediation technique. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 15:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
There's no real 'effective' strategy unless I join the debate and support one side of the consensus. I'm not going to do that - therefore, I'd like to get the input of other people so that we can have consensus. Without that, we're not going to get anywhere without more disputes. As for the noticeboard, it doesn't seem like there's much coming about from that either. Master of Puppets 16:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
<Backdent> Anyway, as I'm writing on the Gilad Atzmon talk page, if Master of Puppets quickly can come up with a workable mediation strategy that also deals with Drsmoo's constant insulting accusations, perhaps we should start from scratch. However, on the Gilad Atzmon page where it will remain part of that record.
Obviously Drsmoo is getting rediculous, dragging in Wikiproject comments and an incident where I deleted an UNsourced accusation for lack for WP:RS (maybe it was sourced and put back later - I don't remember). This mediation is going no where and junking up your talk page with Drsmoo's accusations. Why not archive it and if MoP comes up with good mediation strategy, resurrect it at the Gilad Atzmon talk page? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 00:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Those are the main issues I see at the moment. Drsmoo ( talk) 01:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
<backdent>Carol's response: Thanks to Drsmoo for finally detailing what his issues are instead of just reverting! I have a few more remaining ones for later.
Drsmoo: I think the line Others characterize charges of antisemitism against Atzmon as an attempt to silence or “gag” his criticism of Israel and Zionism. is very POV and I didn't see the word gag in any of the articles cited. I also think using "others" is nebulous and vague, and it is better to cite who exactly is being referenced.
CarolM: My point is that an article on his politics can’t be 50% about 4 people’s criticism of him as an antisemite per Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise. These are “words of praise” regarding an area where he is attacked. Note that Rizzo’s article referenced is called: “The Gag Artists, Who's Afraid of Gilad Atzmon?” It doesn’t take an dictionary to know a “Gag artist” is someone who tries to “gag” someone. However, I don’t have a problem with just keeping it as “silence.” (First time DrSmoo mentioned this issue, FYI.)
Drsmoo: The line Several of Atzmon's statements regarding Israel, Zionism and "Jewishness" have triggered allegations of antisemitism. is factually incorrect, I have yet to see a single commentator or organization accuse Atzmon of antisemitism for a statement regarding Israel or Zionism, only for statements regarding Judaism.
CarolM: These are the two sources in question and what they say:
Drsmoo: The party responded: "Gilad Atzmon is himself a Jew, and when the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism starts calling Jews anti-Semites there is a risk that they undermine the term anti-Semite and do the fight against anti-Semitism a disservice." Seems very far reaching for a quote from the organization defending Atzmon. it is very long as well, certainly far longer than any of the other quotes in the section. It seems more to be redefining antisemitism than specifically defending Atzmon as well.
CarolM: Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise and NPOV would suggest that if one organization attacks Atzmon and another defends him, that defense should be included. And I think it is a clear defense of Atzmon.
Drsmoo: The line Atzmon denies he is an antisemite and says "I'm anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews," comparing "Jewish ideology" to "Nazi ideology," which is "driving our planet into a catastrophe." is extremely POV, and seems to make it sound as if the article is stating that "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe"
CarolM: Proper use of the “catastrophe” quotes deserves it’s whole section. I'm not sure which use of the quote (old, current, mine?) Drsmoo is referring to above, so all I can do is give you the whole original quote. It seems to me Atzmon is making exactly the statement Drsmoo objects to:
So hopefully this finally clears up these here-to-fore unexpressed attribution issues of Drsmoo?? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 21:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
--
|
The original statement was that Several of Atzmon's statements regarding Israel, Zionism and "Jewishness" have triggered allegations of antisemitism.
Is Atzmon Anti-Israel, yes, is Atzmon Anti-Zionist, yes, is Atzmon Anti-Jewish, yes. Has Atzmon been called Antisemitic(anti Jewish) for his statements about Israel or Zionism, no. So that line doesn't work. His Anti-Zionist and anti Israel rhetoric should certainly be, and is, included, but the line that his statements regarding Israel and Zionism have triggered allegations of antisemitism is factually wrong. His statements about Jewishness have however. Drsmoo ( talk) 20:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Atzmon does seem to mention Jewishness per se, Carol. And no, I can't make a decision for you; if Drsmoo isn't happy with phrasing, then that should be discussed. I can't make him (or her) happy. m.o.p 01:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
---
A proposed change to the line:
Several of Atzmon's statements regarding " Jewishness" have triggered allegations of antisemitism [1] [2] [3] Drsmoo ( talk) 19:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
+
As she does not feel it is going her way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation#Problems_with_an_.22informal.22_mediation
Sorry :( Drsmoo ( talk) 19:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
<backdent>As usual, you can't just say "I choose not to go into formal mediation." You have to engage in exaggerated personal attacks. Since the sources in question don't seem to part of this mediation I'll reply on the talk page. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 23:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
<backdent> As I wrote on Gilad Atzmon talk page about Wikiquette Alert on Drsmoo: Even a stubborn Taurus the bull like me can only take so much. Given Drsmoo's extreme hostility towards Atzmon which has led to a number of warnings against him, and the incredibily WP:uncivil, WP:tenditious, WP:Disruptive editing on his part, I have to seriously look at whether it's worth editing this article anymore. How can one deal with a smokescream of obsfucating accusations and denials week after week after week. It's absurd. At this point I think just working to get some administrative action going is the only recourse. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 12:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Given that Drsmoo never bothered to answer Master of Puppet's question at this November 23 diff and given that Drsmoo continued to attack both me and Atzmon elsewhere as mentioned above and at both Wikiettique Alerts, I think we can assume this mediation is over. It is a particularly difficult one given difficulty of getting past behavioral issues that even the most experienced editor in Formal Mediation might not have been able to deal with. So no knock on Master of Puppets. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I am user of article SEGi University College.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEGi_University_College
Seem my article get deletion 3 times. May I know the guidance to make or post an article stay like other such as Talylor's University College, INTI University College and etc?
I will rewrite an article without Copy right or advertise purpose.
Besides, my IP address get block to create article again, any
requirement to unblock it?
Please advice and email me for any request needed. Thanks.
Best Regards,
Did Hossama re-create that article yet again despite the advice I gave? You just can't help some people, can you? Mjroots ( talk) 16:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Master of Puppets, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek. 69 talk 23:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 06:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 15:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Excellent User Page Award | |
Treat for the eyes, but a bit heavy. My broswer went on a holiday. :P -- yousaf465' 02:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC) |
Yes it did took a while previously, this time it loaded rather quickly, cached might be.-- yousaf465' 04:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Under what ground? Lar's criteria are -very- clear. I have met every single one. Ottava Rima ( talk) 04:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings.
I have asked some questions at this section of my talk page.
Thank you.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 13:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven is not a "User in good standing." WP:SPI has determined that PennySeven is User:Nicolaas Smith, who was indeffed for "Disruptive editing." PennySeven was given a second chance, but the end of the indef-block should be considered the time that the second chance started. I suggest you move this horribly disruptive single-purpose disruptive account to not-a-certifier unless the requirements are waived. Hipocrite ( talk) 21:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
What possessed me to actually check the edit summary is unknown, but it was well worth the giggle. What the hell are you doing in Winnipeg anyhow? Hope it's fun, and stay warm!
Nja
247
21:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you review my formulation of the 1RR limit on user Radiopathy, and make additions/modifications if needed ? Abecedare ( talk) 22:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Radiopathy avoiding sanctions. Thank you.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Haha, that was awesome. And I do like Taylor Swift too. I will say I don't really listen to Jonas Brothers, though I can't honestly say that I don't like them because I don't really listen to it. I prefer to think that I can like anything. Anakinjmt ( talk) 17:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to find a source explaining that it's the start of winter in Peshawar, Pakistan, and add that to the article? Is this the rule of Wikipedia? Also, I have to get a source for each person who died explaining they were doing winter shopping? Hope you know this is ridiculous!-- Jrkso ( talk) 23:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you making up your own rules? I've provided a reliable source ( Karen DeYoung and Haq Nawaz Khan of The Washington Post) which indicated that women were doing winter shopping.
“ | At Lady Reading Hospital, a student named Ahmed Jan, 25, said a relative of his had been killed in the bombing. He said she was a teacher who had gone to the market to buy winter clothes for her two children. [12] | ” |
People do winter shopping before the cold winter weather begins, usually one month in advance, and in the case of Peshawar the cold season starts now. You probably live in India where you don't see winter, but in many places of the world people know what winter shopping means. Why did you remove the source? Why don't you use the talk page instead of removing information from articles? This isn't good.-- Jrkso ( talk) 14:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Who do you want to verify this to? You want to verify with sources that it's the start of winter in Peshawar? Or that people in Peshawar go to markets to shop there? Again, this is very ridiculous. I know what OR is. The fact is I've provided a very reliable source (above) clearly mentioning that women were doing winter shopping and even you agreed. So what's the problem then? Why are you so much against this? It's also very ridiculous to ask for about 100 sources, each one mentioning each victim what they were shopping. The information I've added said "majority of the victims were women and children doing winter shopping". All the sources say the site of the blast was an exclusive-for-women shopping area. The sources also say majority of the victims were women and children. So why are you bringing this Wikipedia:No original research to me?-- Jrkso ( talk) 20:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You are the one who removed a source from the article which mentioned women doing winter shopping. That is a violation of Wikipedia rules and you know it.-- Jrkso ( talk) 20:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Nobody said all the people were doing winter shopping. You want me to write in the article that one single woman was doing her winter shopping? Just because you are an administrator doesn't mean you're always right? You are again removing sourced information after I told you to please stop. What is your problem?-- Jrkso ( talk) 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
You now understand my intention, I only wanted readers to get a little idea that it was sort of a busy day, more shoppers than usual due to the coming of winter season. Thanks for helping.-- Jrkso ( talk) 07:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello! The addition of a shadow effect has made your signature much more difficult to read, especially in Firefox. Can you please remove it or otherwise tweak the appearance for improved legibility? — David Levy 00:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
After a long wikibreak, I have decided that coming back to Wikipedia is the best thing to do. I have been incredulously stressed out the time I was gone, and I either a) didn't have the time b)didn't have the attention span due to stress or c)was at camp. Tell me the basics of what's changed here, and I'll get back to editing soon! Jonathan321 (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
What the hell? We're going to have flagged revisions for the whole wiki? Is this some kind of Practical joke you're pulling on me here? This will not only practically destroy Wikipedia, it will also be a blatant violation of WP:AGF. Our only hope is that (and this will come true) that it created such a backlog that we will stop it within the first few days. Jonathan321 (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Since you closed the AfD for Sonic the Hedgehog (film), I would like to ask you to consider salting it. This is the fourth time the hoax has been deleted and I'm guessing it's just going to come back again if we leave it as is. Thanks and have a great week! — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 06:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. It's less intriguing than it seems. Durova 355 21:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Heya MoP we played JK2 together :D You adopted me here last year, I'm sure you almost can't remember me.
So how long have you been playing JK2? ~Speed@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speeda psx ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I know i'm acting like a wimp, but could you unblock 69.113.79.227 (IP adress)? Some of his/her's edits have been constructive. I believe this vandalism happened when someone kept deleting his constructive work on the Sipmsons' Episode "The Burns And The Bees" and this triggered angryness and released it by vandalising people's pages.I'm no admin, but I think he/she should be unblocked. Tell me if you agree or disagree. Thanks! S H 6 04:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem! You should deal with it since, well, I suck. S H 6 07:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Please have a look at User:SarekOfVulcan/Recall_petition_(October_2009) and the talk. I think it may be time for the clerk to do a close, as I believe that it's been well over 5 days since the petition was initiated and there are not 6 certified petitioners. I even suggested a wording to use :) Thanks! ++ Lar: t/ c 17:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I dream of horses @ 19:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for responding over at my talk page. I've added references as you suggested. Would you mind helping to check the page again before I restore it? Thanks. Hboon ( talk) 09:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk)
08:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I hope you don't mind, but I moved your comment from User talk:Megs91/Sandbox to User talk:Megs91 as it is the actual user talk of the author, and they probably read it there more likely. I put to the edit summary where your comment is from. Ilyushka88 talk 18:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been able to respond to the comments; however, I think that your comments and a couple others were incorrect, the tournament is very large for a tennis tournament and attacts a good deal of local interest and press coverage. I have no idea who you are or why you deleted my website - actually, I really am not sure if you were the person that did that. You did write that you did some research; I would suggest that you google "cryan tennis," that should give you some information. I can't imagine that you did or why you would or that you'd have any interest at all, it is a local tournament, only of interest to those in the Central Jersey area and those that have played the tournament, those that play the tournament are from all over the world, the woman that won it this year was from Russia and had been 48th in the world just a couple of years ago. In any case, it's an interesting process, very informative about Wikipedia and how it seems to work. Good luck to you, Master of Puppets! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jncryan1958 ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I was specifically working on the GameHouse article and since RealArcade is no more, some of the info needs to be moved there to that article because of the merger —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonHockeyGuy ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey m.o.p, this is in reply to the suggestion/help you gave me. Hope I'm supposed to reply here. I took some time to gather from revision diffs for you -- or should I be presenting them elsewhere/to someone else? Anyways, here they are by "category" I guess and sorry if I did this wrong.
Also thought I'd mention while I was looking for the specific links apparently others have complained or warned her/him about vandalism. There seems to be several warnings already if you look through talk-page history, actually, i.e:
I think one of the main issues here, and I don't mean to be condesceding to the editor, is that they view Wikipedia as a community gathering site or something... at least, they have referred to the articles as "their community" and "our community" and the articles as "our pages" several times and has been editing the pages to reflect a kind of "support group" or "resource centre" ... i.e see the bottom of the Bisexuality and Bisexual community page (though I fixed the latter up a tad a moment ago) ... I could be wrong, but maybe they're used to editing more community-oriented wikis i.e. Bisexuality Wikipedia and all they need is to be told this Wiki is different? I don't know but this is giving me a huge headache. I'm willing to help a tad more with this such as bringing it to the right person but I've gotten quite sick of it quite fast, I think I'm going back to just copy-editing from now on haha. Again, thanks for your help. Would prefer reply on my talk but here is fine too. Avalik ( talk) 12:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there; after reading the dialogue relating to block/unblock on this user's page, i am unsure if you intended to unblock her or not? Certainly you have not; no-one has. What was the intention? -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 16:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Goldkingtut5 has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Hello. As it is indicated in the policy, Wikipedia:Deletion review, I am addressing you first about a possible mistake you did in deleting the article for this band. Policy states that these matters should not be decided by head count vote. Since all the objections to the article were addressed in the discussion, I don't understand the basis for your decision. All the last posts were between two users defending the article and one who was against it. Thank you. Maziotis ( talk) 23:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
No break yet for thanksgiving? :( Yes, try and come to IRC when you can!-- fetch comms ☛ 21:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
I dream of horses @ has given you a
Turkey! Turkeys promate
WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving! Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{ subst: User:December21st2012Freak/Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
|
Hi there. I'm User:Addihockey10 and I'm looking for an admin coach. Would you be willing to coach me? Thanks! -- Addi hockey 10 (review me!) 21:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, yesterday you deleted this article per CSD G4. Today it has been recreated again. The creator, User:Alastair Haines, has twice removed the db tag and now an anonymous IP has done this for the third time (probably to avoid bot interference and quite possibly this is just the article creator himself). There is a rambling discussion on his talk page and now a "semi-AfD" on the talk page of the article. I don't have the time nor the gusto to get into a fight over this, but it seems that Haines is violating all kind of policies with this repeated recreation of deleted material (not to speak of possible sockpuppetry and a 3RR violation). Perhaps you can look into this. Thanks. -- Crusio ( talk) 16:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I need some archives for my talk page. I have 81 messages on them....
Thanks, Wikidude 57 S B C 20:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi MoP, I was doing a bit of tidying up of Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Requests_for_Coaching, and the entry for BarkingFish says that you are coaching them.
I have contacted BarkingFish, but had no reply yet. If you are admin coaching them, could you please remove their entry on the Requests page, and add an entry on the Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status page? If you are not coaching them, could you remove the "admin comment" on their entry?
On the message at their talk page, I basically asked them if they could do the same - and if they are no longer interested in receiving coaching, if they could remove their name from the list.
It would be nice to get this sorted out - it's only a little thing, but it'd be good to get the list properly tidied up.
I have also suggested here that if someone has not updated their "last visited this page" date in 6 months (or if they have been inactive for 4 months) that their name should be removed from the list (at the moment, if they haven't visited in 6 weeks, their name is move from the current requests to the older requests.
At the moment, their are about 100 "older' requests - removing those more than 6 months old would leave about 20!
If you have any comment on this suggestion, please feel free to leave a message on the thread!
Regards, -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 14:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 01:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
December21st2012Freak
Happy Holidays! is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
December21st2012Freak Happy Holidays! 00:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
December21st2012Freak Happy New Year! at ≈ 00:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you do an ad for WP:AIRPORTS? If you would, that would be great. - Presidentman ( talk) Random Picture of the Day 17:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello this is Clifton Corbin, the guy that created the Keezy19 musician article back in October. I would like to know why you deleted my wiki?? I had all of the importance needed. Can you please restore it or tell me what i have to do to get it back, or help me with it? Please, I'd really appreciate that. Thanx. If you can call me at 7577682261 or email me at cajakzent@aol.com so you can walk me through it because i dont know what to do now. Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123088filez ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Third time's the charm, eh, buddy? :) Jonathan321 (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I see you were involved in saving this article last time it was up for AfD. In the intervening two years there doesn't seem to have been much improvement in the article, or evidence that this young composer has gone on to demonstrate notability, but it would be good if you could cast an eye over things again. Here's the blurb...
An article that you have been involved in editing, Joel Rust, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Rust (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Deskford ( talk) 14:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
Hi, it's been awhile since I've been on Wikipedia, but could you coach me again? All I need is basically a "checklist" to complete before going up for RfA once again. Thanks! -- Addi hockey 10 04:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Friendly heads-up {{ Imagemap}} is deprecated and nominated for deletion. It has been superceded by changes to the File namespace and I wanted to let you know, since you have a transclusion on your userpage or user talk. If you need to respond to this message, please do so on my talk. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 21:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Friendly heads-up {{ Imagemap}} is deprecated and nominated for deletion. It has been superceded by changes to the File namespace and I wanted to let you know, since you have a transclusion on your userpage or user talk. If you need to respond to this message, please do so on my talk. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 21:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Master of Puppets/Talk/Archive! Just reminding you that you are listed as a member of the Random Picture of the Day! It would be great if you could add a picture or too! Put the template on your user page with {{User:Presidentman/potd/template}}, and encourage other users to add pictures. You can also put our userbox on your userpage using: {{User:Presidentman/Ubx/RPOTD}}. Hopefully you'll help out! Talk to you later, Presidentman ( talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC) - Talk to you later, Presidentman ( talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
As an user who enacted the sanction from this discussion, this is to let you know of Grundle2600's topic ban modification request. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Master of Puppets,
I've started to clean up the Adopters' list. You appear to appear to have been editing only sporadically in the last months. I wonder if you're still interested in adopting new users. If you're not interested any more, would you mind removing yourself? Thank you and happy editing, Snowolf How can I help? 12:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Master of Puppets: I was out visiting and went to sign a gbook and saw your sig. Im a (ok I'll be honest) BIG get on the band wagon after the "Black Album" Metallica fan. I was looking for your book but all I found was a vandal's playground, If thats your guestbook I will be glad to sign it. My request is I would love to have your's, if you would Here Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
A tag has been placed on The Fresh Beat Band, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{
hangon}}
on the top of
The Fresh Beat Band and leave a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any
citations from independent
reliable sources to ensure that the article will be
verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
ClapBoy380 (
talk)
15:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
A tag has been placed on Jay-Z, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{
hangon}}
on the top of
Jay-Z and leave a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any
citations from independent
reliable sources to ensure that the article will be
verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
ClapBoy380 (
talk)
15:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
A particuilarly nasty piece of vandalism, yet again, on The Marriage of Figaro article. Viva-Verdi ( talk) 16:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Master of Puppets - I'd like to reconnect with you from an initial conversation a VERY long time ago about finally submitting my first article for the organization I'm a part of, Pragma Systems. Can you help in accomplishing this? Andrewtull ( talk) 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic
Continued Problems Malke 2010: What to do?.
Toddst1 (
talk)
00:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You deleted Asil training camp. The entry you left in the deletion log says: "deleted " Asil training camp" (Speedy deleted per CSD G6, deleting page per result of AfD discussion.(TW))" If the reason you deleted it was that it was a redirect to a deleted page do you believe it lies within your authority to userify the deleted page it pointed to, to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/Asil training camp? If so I would be grateful if you would userify the base article.
Thanks Geo Swan ( talk) 17:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if your username was after the Metallica album. Wikidude 57 S B C 02:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Conkern65 ( talk) 17:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted my page 'Fil OK' in Oct 2008. I've had many musical releases since then and 2 albums, and would very much appreciate it if you would re-instate me if this is possible? Thanks, Fil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fil okay ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Word has got around that you are an expert with making Wikipedia Ads. Wikipedia: WikiProject Cryptozoology needs an ad for our project. If you are interested, the specifications are here, at the bottom of the page..--Gniniv ( talk) 05:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm inviting you to participate in my WP:Editor review, your participation and comments would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! -- Addi hockey 10 20:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
This is going to need both a source and a license; something along the lines of "I created this work entirely by myself", and then a suitable copyright tag. Courcelles 17:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
o.m.g. it's m.o.p.
Are you back to stay, or just dropping in? / ƒETCH COMMS / 00:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
We've just had this user pop onto IRC - it seems he's a newbie who was wanting to change their username - nothing more. As such, I've removed the sockpuppet tag from the page, and replaced it with an alternate account tag. The account is still blocked though as he said himself that he's not going to use it, so there's no point in unblocking.
Ta
[ stwalkerster| talk 03:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like to complain (I assume you are an admin) to you about Jingiby, Todor and the other two - they do not seem to understand that, according to wikipedia's rules, all significant views must be mentioned in an article. i do not know if you are aware of what Bulgarians believe. but let me tell you this - a lot of Bulgarians do not see themselves as a slavic nation (if you dont believe, ask some yourself, or take a look on the net). This, together with the fact that a special effort was put by a team of scientists (from the Bulgarian academy of sciences - if you do not believe me, phone them or email them) to go to a couple of Iranic countries to do genetic research 9amongst other research) to gather evidence for the significant view that Bulgarians are not Slavic, but closer to Iranic peoples. The team concluded, from analysing their data, that Bulgarians are closer to Iranic peoples than Slavic, as matter of fact they basically said that Bulgarians are very far from Slavs. I also have proper sources for this Now, those editors consistently remove this sourced info and basically not giving any other theories a chance - what looks like pushing only one POV. Clearly, according to peoples bliefs, and more importantly respected genetic research, shows that there are other views and theories. In wikipedia's rules it clearly states that for an article to be NPOV, all signifant views must be mentioned - their excuse all the time is that my sources are not proper, compliant sources, but I over and over again keep telling them, that according to wiki rules (and I checked) my sources are comoliant - it says that you are allowed to use major newspapers as sources - and novinite.com is a major one. Those editors are not willing to aknowledge other theories and they keep removingmy content without proper explanation as to why they are doing it - ll the time just saying I vandalise (to which I take great offence, as I am nothing like vandals on wikipedia) and that my sources are not compliant. Basically i explained why what they are doing is wrong, but they have not once explained to me why what I am doing is "wrong", just replying with one sentence replies all the time. Basically he is not arguing about what the source itself says, but just that it is not a compliant source (but surely in such a major newspaper they would not invent a story like that from scratch - that a big expedition happened, by Bulgarian scientists and that they did genetic research - surely the nespaper, a major one like that, first checked the information before putting it one, and if they dont check it then surely they stand at a risk for losing prestige, respect and millions of euros - for putting false info, thus making people angry. Strangely enough, I recently also made an edit to Bulgaria page adding the info that recently the alleged remains of St John the Baptist was found in Bulgaria (but not 100% confirmed) I added that info plus a source from BBC, and no one, including Jingiby, had a problem with that (he didnt argue about the source at all and left it, but for the other source, which is equally compliant, he argues a lot - all signifying that he hasnt really got a problem with the source itself, but with the information itself (because if he did have a problem with the source then he would have argued about all electronic newspapers, including the BBC one - the story and logic of the situation of that edit and the edit that there is another significant view of the origins of the Bulgarians is the same logic. jingiby and Todor just dont want to aknowledge another view, which is significant, and go so far as to downright remove it from the article and its source. Please, I have a favour to ask of you - to truly understand this argument and to know all sides of it, please take a couple of minutes to read what i wrote to the editors - it will help in understanding this more - everything is below (and also please read all my comments to my edits on the Bulgarians page (oh, and by the way, I now realise that i did indeed break the 3 rever rule - i would like to humbly apologise for that action, I didn't realise I did it and would like to say sorry for that): To Jingiby (and thus Todor as well):
POV? Vandalsim??How are my edits POV?, when first of all - most Bulgarians DO NOT see themselves as Slavic (so majority agrees with me), and second of all - science (not speculation and fringe theories) were used to produce the DNA evidence and on top of that there were two sources - which comply with wiki rules - I checked. I am adamant in adding this as Bulgarians have a right to know the latest genetic research of their race - it is fair that they should be aware of this research, don't you think - so please explain to me how it is POV - perhaps you are using POV by ignoring 2 compliant sources and by ignoring genetic evidence - when one uses their logic here then it looks like you are using POV, not me - I backed up my statement with 2 sources and like I said, many, many Bulgarians do not consider themselves Slavic. It seems shameful that this information and DNA evidence seems to be hated - a lot of Bulgarians and people in general might not be aware of this genetic research at the moment as it is still recent - so reading it on wikipedia - which is free and very easy to access, seems like a good place to read up on this stuff - so back to my other point - it should remain here so that Bulgarians can read it and then know more sides of the story - they have a right to know about the research that is going on about their race - it is only fair!
It seems quite selfish, shameful really, that you should try to hide this from wikipedia, thus removing any chance that a Bulgarian would read it - thus taking away a basic right to know more about their race - and then to use the excuse that it is POV (POV is a very sensitive issue on wiki, so if someone uses it in an argument they gain an unfair advantage a lot of the time), just because you don't agree with it. It is ridiculous to hide this and remove the right of people to know about it and to know more sides of the story {one side of the story - like you are trying to convey (even more so by ignoring the DNA evidence - which by the way is taken so seriously that it is used to identify criminals etc which determines if a person goes to jail or not) is actually POV, while NPOV is writing about the other side of the story as well - in this case - the genetic research}. I don't know if you are ware, but the fact is many, many Bulgarians consider the Slavic theory to be ridiculous and do not consider themselves Slavic at all, and in that regard also: including one side but not the other side of the story - only supports one view (that they are Slavic) while there is prejudice against another - POV.
I simply just don't see what is hard to understand - the DNA evidence clearly shows that modern Bulgarians are not Slavs - why do you ignore that and say I push a POV - that is a highly unfair and unjust accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is not a forum, but encyclopedia. Please, read Wikipedia rules about original research and reliable sources. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Jingby (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, and all due respect, canyou go read the wiki rules and see what are compliant sources. I checked well, and it turns out that the source from novinite.com is perfectly acceptable. And please go read the section (forgot exactly which one, but you will find it) where it says that all significant viewpoint have to be mentioned in an article for it to be neutral (and it surely is significant if there is genetic evidence and also id a lot of Bulgarians identify themselves as non Slavic). i dont see what the problem is here - I have read the rules and am respecting them by adding all signifiant viewpoints - what is wrong with that. You just say, abruptly, that I use "extreme POV and fringe theories", but how is it POV, and let alone extreme, if I abide to the wiki rules by adding all viewpoints, plus adding source to boot. And how is is fringe theories if there is genetic evidence and if many Bulgarians identify themselves as non Slavic (if no Bulgarians identified themselves as non Slavic and if only one person opposed the slavic theory, then yes - it will be fringe, but that is not the case here). It seems that you don't have any argument to back up your claims of me using POV and that it is a fringe theory - your response to my edit is just immediate revert, with no discussion, or understanding of what I am saying, plus you give no explanations or reasons (you just say extreme POV and fringe theories) - a behavior which is not rational or appropriate (it seems you just oppose all views but your own, and very strongly at that, you just want to have one viewpoint in the article, which actually goes against the rules - who is using POV now?) - from your behavior it seems that you have some prejudices to other viewpoints and theories, to such a degree that you revert it abruptly without any discussion or understanding - all of this is not right, I think, for a wikipedia editor. And by the way I know that this is not a forum, no kidding, i was simply explaining my what I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Novinite.com is not a reliable source for DNA-study. Please, check again. Jingby (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
i did check time and time again, it says in wikirules that you can use a well known newspaper as a source. If you hate this so much then why dont you phone the team who did it and get further clarification, talk to them etc and then come back and discuss here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This is what I wrote to Todor - it is absolutely valid for you as well, and please reasd it, to understand my views. Also you have not ONCE explained how, what I am doing, is vandalism, but I can explain how what you are doing is vandalsim, if you read the following below. You keep calling me a vandal (without explaining and backing up that statement) - something to which I, as any respectful editor on wiki, takes great offence - offending someone on wikipedia is not acceptable. And how am i a vandal (something which, it seems, you cannot explain) when I follow all of wikiepdia's rules, especially the neutrality one. By pushing your POV (that is: putting only one view instead of all significant views - significant because it is backed up by genetic research (read more on it below) and because many Bulgarians do not consider themselves as slavic) and failing to aknow;edge another view, which is significant and is backed up by sources - here is a more complete and detailed source, with slightly more info http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117903) you are disrespecting wikipedia's rules, as simple as that, and ruining this article. I simply cannot fathom why it is so hard for you to understand other views - failure to aknowledge other significant views, especially when they are backed up by compliant sources, and deleting those sources and also completely erasing that view from an article is what really constitutes vandalism, I am sure anyone would agree here. I am sick of you calling me a vandal when you do not explain yourself properly - on why I am a vandal. if you read below you would see why i am not a vandal at all, please read below.
Hi I have noted and read the past edits and comments between Kreuzkümmel and you on Bulgarians article - and I must say i am appalled at the fact that on your comment you said "such edits are NOT welcome" - what gives you the right to say what is welcome on the article? - maybe it is not welcome for you, but for others it is welcome - you cant just speak out like that for everyone. I see and understand that he was trying to say that Bulgarians are not Slavic ethnically but culturally in terms of language. Now I dont know if you are even part of Bulgarian society, because if you are then you would have been aware that a lot ( a high number) of Bulgarians don't see themselves as Slavic at all - so tell me then why such edits are NOT welcome - in that sense you are then going against a major opinion of the Bulgarians themselves (those that dont consider themselves Slavic). If you had looked yourself in the mirror more often and actually had taken notice, then you would have seen that Bulgarians dont even look like Slavs - even in the wiki articles it says that Bulgarian "slavs" look quite different to the rest of the slavs - gee, I wonder why, It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand why, all it actually takes is common sense and logic - proper rational thought. Now to my next point - I don't know if you are even aware, but there was a scientific Bulgarian expedition, Tangra, that collected DNA data from Pamirian/Iranic people last year (there were only scientists and doctors in the team, no kooks, speculators or anything like that) and they concluded, after analyzing all the DNA data ( a scientific, not fringe process) that modern day Bulgarians are very far from Slavs, genetically, and very close to Iranic/Pamirian peoples, genetically. DNA evidence is not some crack pot thing - it is a very serious study and discipline which is used by forensic pathologists (doctors - who are very respected and are scientists) for many reasons - such as to identify ancestry, to identify a murderer (which lead to a decision whether a person goes to jail or not, so it is very important and DNA science is taken seriously). Read about it here:
http://thearchaeologicalbox.com/en/news/dna-analysis-reveals-pamir-origin-bulgarians and
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117006 I just don't see what is difficult to understand here - DNA evidence simply shows that the Bulgarians are not Slavs (which would explain why, in the wiki articles, it says they are different in terms of genetic from other Slavs, and which would also explain why Bulgarians simply do not look Slavic). It seems you are basing your argument not on reasoning, interpretation of data and rational thought, but on some prejudices that you might have, who knows. The fact that you said such edits are not welcomed on wikipedia, indicates (perhaps clearly) that you are not willing to listen and understand other sides of the story, but only know and believe your opinion to such an extent that if anyone says something contrary to what you think, then you say that edit is not welcomed - all this indicates that you have a firm POV, not NPOV, because if you had NPOV, then you would allow the other side of the story to be on the article and would have allowed (and not resisted) that edit to be read by Bulgarians themselves who might stumble onto this page - Bulgarians who have a basic right to know all the research that is happening on their racial identity. What you seem to like doing is you want to hide this and keep it way from any Bulgarian who might read something like this - so you are in effect, forcing them to read and understand only one theory (of their origins/reace etc) in this article (which is POV according to the wiki rule page which by the way I read - it says all relevant major viewpoints and theories must be mentioned to be NPOV, if it is not done that way then it is simply POV), instead of adding all relevant (sourced) viewpointw that deal with the topic - i.e: adding the sourced info that talks about the 2010 DNA research (the two sources, after checking the wiki rule pages, actually comply as proper sources). Basically what I am saying is that if you only include one theory (that they are Slavic), you are then removing the basic right of Bulgarians (who might read this) to see and read all the viewpoints, instead of just one, which is very unfair and if it removed over and over - then it is simply shameful. For this article to be fair to all viewpoints (especially if they are backed up by DNA research and compliant sources) need to be mentioned - NPOV, not just one (that they are Slavs), otherwise it will be POV. thank you for reading and hopefully understanding Kind Regards 146.232.75.208 (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
what vandalismI am quite frankly getting sick and tired of your nonsense - you insult me (bad behaviour in wiki) by saying my edits are vandalism - let me tell you what vandalism is - "On Wikipedia, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. Vandalism includes the addition, removal, or other modification of the text or other material that is either humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, spam or promotion of a subject, or that is of an offensive, humiliating, or otherwise degrading nature." None of what I am doing constitues that - my edits are neither humerous, nonsensical (as I use sourced DNA information to back my statement - by the way if a theory is backed up by DNA evidence it immediately becomes a significant view anyway - it seems, according to you, that DNA is useless, as you are ignoring it and never commenting on it; but how can it be useless if it is used in medicine and forensics - which are two very respected fields and are so important that they decide if a person is prosecuted or not). I have tried to reason with you and show you the wiki ruels of neutrality (and ignore all rules rule, if it goes agains common sense), but you dont seem to want to cooperate an d insult me by saying my edits constitute vandalism - never once did you actually stop and properly explain how what i am doing is apperently wrong (you never once explained how my edits constitute vandalism) while I explained, clearly, what you are doing is wrong - you seem to be a ultra nationalist of the slavic theory (inmy opinion, no offence), and I cant fathom why, since in the article itself it says the DNA of the "slavic" Bulgarians is seperetated from the tight cluster of other slavic peoples, yet you still cling to this theory so much that you are not willing to listen and rationally examin other viewpoints (which are pretty significant if DNA research backs them up) - a behaviour, which I am sure everyone will agree, is not acceptable on wikipedia - let me summarise - I have explained my rational thoughts on the mattr plus I explained how what you are doing is wrong - but you have not done any of those things. Let me ask you again (before you call me a vandal unjustly gain) - how is my theory a fringe theory (and it is not kust my theory) when I have compliant sources with DNA research to back up my statements (need I reming you of the respect that DNA research gets in medicne and forensics), and on top of that - many Bulgarians do not see themselves as slavic - so I do not see the sense why you people (who are just 3 people it seems) continue to push a theory that goes against what a lot of people believe and more importantly, a theory that goes against DNA research. True, the slavic theory is a significant viewpoint, but there is another one too, which you guys unjustly remove without proper explanations on why you are doing so (after all it just follows the wikipedia neutrality rules, so I simply just cannot understand why you guys are doing it) and then you call me a vandal - how is that, in any way, fair? And to make the matter more confusing, all that you are doing all the time is just calling me a vandal, POV, vandal, POV, without ever discussing the ppoints I made - to any rational person it would seem that the behaviour you are displaying is senseless. I am not looking for any fights here or any arguments, neither do I like to "vandalise" pages, I have never done that and get irritated when people doing (by adding insults, crude humour, blanking etc). I am not that type of person who you seem to think I am. I am just following the good order of things and tryong to make the page better, while you just call me a vandal the whole time, never properly explaining anything, and then you people say that I go against editor concensus - what consencus when I am an editor and I dont agree, neither do other people it seems. I have not, so far (and am not planning to), gone against any wikipedia rules, but you people seem to be going against them, when you remove sourced info of a significant viewpont (I have already explained how it is significant and not fringe) and when you do not, even briefly, aknowledge special genetic research that was done on the matter. I ask you - if youare so againt this (as it would surely seem) why dont yougo phone the team that did the research, talk to them and have a discussion about the whole matter and then come back to discuss here. As a matter of fact it would seem that you have not even read the sources (everyone in the team, by the way, was a scientist or a doctor, who are scientist anyway). I do not undertsand why you just dont understand what I am saying - it is not fair, and goes against the rules, to only add and push one viewpoint as you are doing, and ignore the others - ignoring other research and scientific viewpoints can lead to scientific inncacuracy and can lead to many unwanted mistakes in the future
Read this again: http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117903 It is an updated page that contains more info.
PLUS READ ALL MY COMMENTS ON THE EDITS
If after all this you still think that i am a vandal, then (in my opinion) you don't belong in wikipedia, especially if you offend people with no just reason (by not explaing yourself) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Please, provide reliable, scientific, secondary University sources in English language supporting your extreme views. News on IT free-site in Bulgaria are nothing, but a reliable reference. Stop blind reverds. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Oh my word?Are you slow??Or are you trying to be slow? HOW MANY TIMES must I say to you (I am sick of it now) that my sources are COMPLIANT to wikipedia, did you get that? I said COMPLIANT, COMPLIANT, COMPLIANT, I will say it again: COMPLIANT. Now do you finally understand that my sources are fine. Oh my word - you do it again, another statement without an explanation: "blind revert" - a senseless statement as I have just put in a massive effort of explaining to you why they are not blind, and you still think my edits constitute vandalism. I have now grabbed my hair in frustration and awe on how you can still say these things without EXPLAINING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
No, they arn't. Fullstop. Jingby (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
There you go again - you say my revert is a "blind one" - I have JUST PUT IN A MASSIVE EFFORT OF EXPLAINING TO YOU why they cannot possibly be blind and you still think my edits constitute vandalsim - I am now in awe and in shock at how you can possibly say that after you have just read what I had to say. I am also SICK AND TIRED FOR EXPLAINING FOR THE 20TH TIME THAT MY SOURCES ARE COMLIANT, compliant, compliant - I will say it another five times so that it can go into your head - compliant, compliant, compliant, complaint, compliant - did you get that???? I said my sources are compliant, compliant.
I have read the wiki rules and made sure that a newspaper article (from a MAJOR newspaper by the way) is a compliant source - you just dont seem to understand that do you, nowhere does it say you JUST have to use university sources and nothing else, does it now?
By the way, in the Bulgarian article of Bulgarians, it says in the lede that they are a Balkan people 0 you left it like that there so why are you so adament in saying that they are slavic, and in the process ignoring wikipedia's rules? In general (in my opinion), it seems you are a hypocrite - you hate vandalism and try to remove it from various articles(something I respect), but in this case (in my opinion) you seem to be doing it yourself? What gives Jingiby? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
You know that by saying "no, they arent. Fullstop" that you really look like an uncooperative person, who knows and firmly stands by his belief and his belief only. Yet again you dont explain yourself in this whole argument - you just respond with one sentence replies all the time - looks to me like childish behaviour. To someone who just comes (from the outside, and looks at the argument for the first time randomly) and who might view the whole argument so far - it can look like you are very uncooperative and not willing to aknowledge other views. in essence, from the outside, if someone were to view everything so far, it would seem that your, not mine, behaviour is unnaceptable and constitutes vandalsim
I hope you understand my point here and am also asking for your help in solving this argument. It is just not fair that they all gang up on me and isist on only one view. Kind Regards 146.232.75.208 ( talk) 07:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry I deleted your statement on the talk page, I did it because it is a university's account, so I kinda didnt want other people to see my personal affairs. Thank you for understanding my side. Yes, I must create an account and I will do it soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 ( talk) 07:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC) I hope this helps - it is an updated version of the info, and another source is archaeologybox.com (that particular one I dont know if it is 100% compliant). Another source, which I am not 100% if it is compliant, is: http://dnes.dir.bg/news.php?id=6541326&fp=1 (I am not sure if that is a 'major" newspaper) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 ( talk) 07:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Also, i think it said on the one version of the info, that the research/expedition was initiated/controlled by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, so I do not see what all the commotion is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 ( talk) 07:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for all the things I did. I will try not to do this again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.15.30.150 ( talk) 07:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi again! I meant to say that I wouldn't like to be involved with the IP anymore because I find the content dispute itself unpleasant. Otherwise, I'd be glad to work with you and provide my opinion.
Yes, what you're proposing as a solution would be an improvement, but I don't think it would be enough of an improvement. I would not really find it completely acceptable if this theory is present on par with the dominant theory: that the Slavs did have a decisive factor in the formation of the Bulgarian ethnicity, at least on par with the Bulgars (Proto-Bulgarians). The theory that Slavs have had a "negligible" (per the IP's wording) ethnic contribution is very alternative, and whether Thracians were part of the Bulgarian ethnogenesis at all is a controversial issue among scholars. It's not really necessary to defend my point, but consider this: the Bulgarian language is a South Slavic language, which is part of a smooth dialect continuum with Macedonian and Serbian to the west.
I've done some research on the author of the theory, some Slavyan Stoilov (mentioned in the Novinite.com article), who appears to be a physician and who was part of the expedition which put forth the theory as the expedition's medic and a researcher of Bulgarian traditional medicine ( [13], Google Translate). This is hardly a person whose opinion on the ethnogenesis of Bulgarians should be respected, what's left given WP:UNDUE weight.
I still maintain, along with the three other editors who have reverted the IP, that this research is too fringe and not referenced well enough to be included in the article. Shortening and properly explaining Stoilov's research will improve the state of the article, but personally I don't think this will be enough.
Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 14:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Master of Puppets/Archhead User:Master of Puppets/Header
|
![]() If you wish to revitalize an archived discussion, please copy and paste all text, formatting included, to the bottom of my talk page. Thanks! |
This game has been reviewed by almost every major gaming site (IGN, Gamespot, Play Magazine, GamePro, PSM, Games Radar, Game Informer, Gamespy, G4TV, etc.), so how is it not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? Most PSP gamers who play SRPGs or import games have heard of Aedis Eclipse. Unless you're going to also delete Generation of Chaos, Spectral Souls, and any other game that you personally hadn't heard of before (and suggest that everyone else do the same), then Aedis Eclipse belongs on Wikipedia too.
Please, please, please do a little more research on the topic of a page before you delete it for lack of notability. I'm so tired of finding pages (especially ones that had valuable information others put time into writing) deleted for not meeting Wikipedia's "notability" requirement by someone who is simply not qualified to make that judgment. I mean, you don't need to be an astrophysicist to judge whether or not a page on an astrophysics concept is notable enough to be in Wikipedia. But you should at the very least consult someone who has studied, or is an authority on, astrophysics before making the decision to delete the page.
If more people would do this, then topics as Aedis Eclipse or ComboFix wouldn't constantly get deleted by those completely clueless about the topic.-- Subversive Sound ( talk) 05:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
You have speedy-deleted the following image on the grounds of being unfree and unused for more than 7 days:
This image has not been unused for more than 7 days. Remco47 ( talk) 10:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Unblock Hello, What a great page. I just signed in to thank you for taking care of my what I believed to be block and alerting me to the fact that I might not have been signed in (very likely) lumenlitt Lumenlitt ( talk) 10:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Excuse my bothering you but your actions at the AFD seem increasingly improper. You relisted the discussion, saying "people are clearly divided on this". This seemed improper because a discussion on which editors are clearly divided should be closed as no consensus. I let that pass but now you are contributing to the debate and seem to be urging a particular conclusion. This gives the impression that you are manipulating the process to achieve your preferred result. Please reconsider your actions. Colonel Warden ( talk) 17:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
LOL! -- I am lennin!wioe ( talk) 23:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This is way overdue. Too much dessert isn't good for you! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 02:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I have suggested int e past and again that because the subject which the edit warring and problem reside are so touchy due to rivarly between both fans then it best to take it to medation and allow them to set out rules on what to include and what not to and how mcuh shoudl be there. Because the oen adding stuff have admitted there celtic fans but i trust they are acting with no due biased but rangers fans dnt then it causing lots of problems because the rangers look at the celtic article adn see very little but then look at the rangers article and see a lot and when ever they try to add to teh celtic it gets removed but when they try to remove from the rangers ti gets reverted. so you are gettigna big fight of wars over a very touchy subject. so would this be best taking to aneutral peopel who ahve no invloment in and there ecision would probally be better accepted.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 16:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi MoP I was wondering if you could tell me what
this would fall under as a candidate for speedy deletion, it's obviously not a real word and Wikipedia is not a dictionary but I don't think it would fall under patent nonsense either. Words of wisdom?
Jeffrey Mall (
talk •
contribs) -
17:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I had thought that you had locked the article on Mary Baker Eddy until November 9. The Vandal that had been editing it User:SatansHelper666 has reappeared and has edited the page. How is this possible? Sorry to be a bother. -- Digitalican ( talk) 09:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey its Lenin, so whats up? -- I am lennin!wioe ( talk) 23:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings Master of Puppets. At the beginning of the year you blocked User talk:124.105.97.207. Please consider a longer block next time round.-- Technopat ( talk) 05:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you should check my contributions before accusing me of edit warring. I've only ever edited the page in question twice and once was to fix an error I made the first time. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: [1]: User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this comment [2] - intentionally or not, you did in fact chose a "preferred version". I'm going to copy my comment on T:GP to this place, since you appear not to have read it:
As you can see, there is a very good reason for people stating that you chose a "preferred version". -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 18:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You should also know that Connoley has basically been rewarded for edit-warring, with his "under-the-wire" edit, right before you protected it. If we're going with "status quo when you arrived", that edit should be reverted, right? U A 18:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Guitarherochristopher Has A Question For You To Answer: Want To Create The Animated .GIF Advertisement For The Alternative Music Wikiproject?
(((
(GU!TARH3R0
:
CHR!ST0PHER) )))
02:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you please check how discussion is being blocked on the Inflation talk page. Thank you. PennySeven ( talk) 16:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at this and putting in your two cents worth. I am tired of fighting with this new user. Thanks! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 04:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
please move the malia discussion back to AN because the move prevents me from discussing it (cannot write on that page).
Also the discussion is on the discussion page of another article (Family of...) which is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 ( talk • contribs) 04:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your change. It is 1000% easier to leave a comment on that ANI section than to keep going back to that article to restore it. Now I can leave the comment and see if others want to restore it or not. Really, they should. There are so many unknown people with articles and Malia has —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Does the topic ban need to be logged at WP:RESTRICT? Mjroots ( talk) 12:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Rather than locking the page, or in addition to it, I would ask that you sanction this editor for his continuing disruptive behaviour. He still seems to think that his editwarring, twice breaking 4 reverts in 48 hours, and his grossly insulting comments are justified. An educational and preventative block would be in order, per the editwarring and gross incivility. This would also allow the page to be unblocked so that other editors who are now involved can continue to improve the article. Verbal chat 14:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
ANI Notice: Please have a look at Wikipedia:ANI#Verbal_and_Colloidal_Silver. The above shows I have acted properly despite baiting, provocation, misleading cimments, abuse etc by these two known problem editors. Verbal chat 08:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Would be nice to get responses. You should watch the pages you come in and lock, as often the users that are the most frequent contributors at those articles have comments. In my case I'm requesting the pre-edit war version be locked as then the fly-by-editors who made the controversial changes would actually be enticed to comment and form consensus for those changes. I'd also appreciate a response at my talk page regarding my first/final warning from you, which I feel was inappropriate given the situation that you were not fully aware of (and come to think of it, acted upon without a single communication with me, only Verbal). Thank you - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Your mentee, Pennyseven, is posting profusely on the Inflation talk page again. Could you ask him to keep the wikidrama in his edits to a minimum? It reads like someone trying to intimidate other people away from the debate. At the least, it's unnecessary wikidrama that makes the editing atmosphere unpleasant.
Also, to clarify, I never at any time suggested that disagreeing with me was edit warring. The only message I left related to edit warring was the message I left informing him of my intent to revert his changes and why I was doing so. I ended (perhaps inappropriately) with a request that he not revert my changes and start an edit war, as the result would be the same (since his changes are opposed by the members of the Econ wikiproject). I never said that disagreeing with me was edit warring. PS has a history of misreporting things like that.
thanks, LK ( talk) 11:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Note that both Lawrence and Jacurek have become adept in getting their way by appealing directly to admins. It seems to have happened again in a content dispute that involved two admins, here. To both Some and Master, this is a content dispute that was being handled properly on the talk page of No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron with both parties at fault but Varsovian at least had a semblance of contrition and made efforts to discuss relevant topics. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 12:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Excellent User Page Award | |
I feel that I absolutely MUST give you this barnstar. I love how your userpage looks. Very clean looking. Looks perfect for my eyes. Ilyushka88 talk 12:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC) |
User:CarolMoore seems to have an issue with the Wikipedia consensus on the Gilad Atzmon article. She is determined to turn the article into an apology and advertisement for Mr. Atzmon. She's asked several editors on noticeboards to help her, and then reverted away their edits when they made the article adhere to guidelines. I've edited the article consistently for the past months, keeping it in line with Wikipedia policy. As a result, she has campaigned tirelessly, and fruitlessly to have me banned. However as said before, the real issue is that she does not accept the edits of any other Wikieditors, and is determined to turn the article on Gilad Atzmon into an NPOV advertisement. This has been noted by others as well. But the issue is the article, and getting it right, and making sure it stays right. Drsmoo ( talk) 14:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Also to my knowledge, there is no reliable source which calls Atzmon an Anti-semite for his statements on Israel or Zionism, rather it is for his statements on Judaism. Drsmoo ( talk) 11:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321461856&oldid=321458823, http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321642476&oldid=321642088
Not sure why my post is coming in gray...
<backdent>I'll be happy to see any response from them. SlimVirgin and Hipocrite basically agreed the Politics section should be shorter than much longer section. SlimVirgin made a very short version which I critiqued but she didn't respond at all. Hipocrite's only opinion on my proposal to use a draft page an admin set up after the article was protected was that it should be shorter. So I did in fact put up a short version with some updates.
The issue is that Drsmoo continues to put out of context, poorly sourced quotes and opinions in, while taking out NPOV material that he thinks defends Atzmon, to make Atzmon look bad. In the past he frequently has inserted his SOAPBOX opinion that Atzmon is an evil person who the wikipedia article must expose. After he was [ |advised against doing that] he's been more circumspect on talk page. But it remains clear that making Atzmon look bad is his intent and it ticks me off an editor is allowed to push a POV in a BLP where there already has been an OTRS complaint by the subject.
Process wise, I'd go to Wikipedia:Third_opinion but doesn't seem to have much action. I assume you are experienced in mediation so we don't have to request one more formally? Thanks. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
<backdent> Just in case Puppet Master intends to get involved, here's my list of most recent complaints about BLP violations. If you are too busy or already too burned out on this, maybe I should just bring the most relevant ones back to the BLP page. Please mention that no mediation happened or whatever on the 3rr page if you aren't interested. Thanks. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 03:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm still watching, Carol, and I still intend to mediate (I've got experience with it, so no worries). Obviously, if you'd like to pursue another venue of resolution regardless, I'm all for that. Anyway, I've been trying to fish SlimVirgin and Hipocrite out of hiding, as their comment is needed; I'm not going to analyze content any further, as things tend to get complicated when admins do so. I wouldn't be biased, but analyzing it could give somebody fodder to state that I've got a bias, at which point I'm no longer an effective mediator.
That being said, there's a lot here which is complicating things; I hope some of the following requests won't be too taxing. I'd do it myself, but the more I read through exhaustive amounts of text, the less this becomes mediation and more a third opinion (mediation is helping you guys figure it out, while a third opinion wouldn't really do that).
I'll add in more as I keep examining. Master of Puppets 08:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
<backdent>Took a day's break; glad to see you are still with us :-) Current issues as described
in recent talk page and elsewheres:
1. Already brought this issue to WP:RS Noticeboard
here - THIS specific question of which source and context to use for the quote had NOT been replied to at all except by Drsmoo, so there is no consensus on it yet:
Note that the only respondent on WP:RS Noticeboard didn't think either WP:RS, while Drsmoo discouraged conversation by throwing up his usual smokescreen of how I'm allegedly against consensus, when
2. Drsmoo continues writing: "Several of Atzmon's statements regarding "Jewishness" have triggered allegations of antisemitism." (Originally he put in "Judaism.") However the two sources immediately after the sentence say more than that: Gilchrest mentions both Atzmon's anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel and Gibson mentions specifically criticism of Israel and what happens to people who criticize of Zionism (i.e., clearly he means people like Atzmon). Obviously he is misusing sources to push his hobby horse that Atzmon is against Jews/Judaism. (What ex-Israeli IDF member Atzmon says is complicated and easy to distort with short out of context sentences.)
This is a clear abuse of use of sources.
3. Use of link to The Paranoid Style in American Politics from Cohen's quote on "paranoid mentality" seems a POV, WP:Undue stretch, especially since this is British politics.
4. Drsmoo deleted a quote in defense of Atzmon I'd shortened for shortness sake. He then removed it and claimed it was irrelevant since didn't mention Atzmon. So this morning I put whole quote in mentioning Atzmon. We'll see if he reverts that. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 13:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
<backdent>Considering that they have not responded in 10 days, I'd say it's unlikely they will respond. And remember I picked apart SlimVirgin's version for various BLP violations when she originally put it up (as I did Drsmoo's slightly altered version), so maybe neither of them are interested in pursuing the various issues further. Since you obviously are having connection problems, and since the current version which Drsmoo kept reverting back to (thus my 3RR complaint) violates Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise, how about I just put up the two versions, plus a link to my criticisms diff of it on the BLP Noticeboard. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 00:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
??Who is everyone, besides you?? Please supply diffs or stop with your accusations. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 19:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
<backdent>If you do not want to comment on policy, especially in a BLP situation, it would seem WP:BLPN is the best place to go. Repeatedly asking editors who perhaps showed only a temporary interest doesn't seem to be working. (User:SlimVirgin has removed your query from her talk page; did she answer it at all? Same with other editor you contacted.) Other editors interested in BLP policy might well respond to a specific listing of issues which I have listed repeatedly at the BLPN. Asking editors to choose between two versions, ignoring the many very specific policy disputes I have with the first version, which the authoring editor never bothered to answer, obviously is not a very effective mediation technique. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 15:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
There's no real 'effective' strategy unless I join the debate and support one side of the consensus. I'm not going to do that - therefore, I'd like to get the input of other people so that we can have consensus. Without that, we're not going to get anywhere without more disputes. As for the noticeboard, it doesn't seem like there's much coming about from that either. Master of Puppets 16:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
<Backdent> Anyway, as I'm writing on the Gilad Atzmon talk page, if Master of Puppets quickly can come up with a workable mediation strategy that also deals with Drsmoo's constant insulting accusations, perhaps we should start from scratch. However, on the Gilad Atzmon page where it will remain part of that record.
Obviously Drsmoo is getting rediculous, dragging in Wikiproject comments and an incident where I deleted an UNsourced accusation for lack for WP:RS (maybe it was sourced and put back later - I don't remember). This mediation is going no where and junking up your talk page with Drsmoo's accusations. Why not archive it and if MoP comes up with good mediation strategy, resurrect it at the Gilad Atzmon talk page? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 00:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Those are the main issues I see at the moment. Drsmoo ( talk) 01:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
<backdent>Carol's response: Thanks to Drsmoo for finally detailing what his issues are instead of just reverting! I have a few more remaining ones for later.
Drsmoo: I think the line Others characterize charges of antisemitism against Atzmon as an attempt to silence or “gag” his criticism of Israel and Zionism. is very POV and I didn't see the word gag in any of the articles cited. I also think using "others" is nebulous and vague, and it is better to cite who exactly is being referenced.
CarolM: My point is that an article on his politics can’t be 50% about 4 people’s criticism of him as an antisemite per Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise. These are “words of praise” regarding an area where he is attacked. Note that Rizzo’s article referenced is called: “The Gag Artists, Who's Afraid of Gilad Atzmon?” It doesn’t take an dictionary to know a “Gag artist” is someone who tries to “gag” someone. However, I don’t have a problem with just keeping it as “silence.” (First time DrSmoo mentioned this issue, FYI.)
Drsmoo: The line Several of Atzmon's statements regarding Israel, Zionism and "Jewishness" have triggered allegations of antisemitism. is factually incorrect, I have yet to see a single commentator or organization accuse Atzmon of antisemitism for a statement regarding Israel or Zionism, only for statements regarding Judaism.
CarolM: These are the two sources in question and what they say:
Drsmoo: The party responded: "Gilad Atzmon is himself a Jew, and when the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism starts calling Jews anti-Semites there is a risk that they undermine the term anti-Semite and do the fight against anti-Semitism a disservice." Seems very far reaching for a quote from the organization defending Atzmon. it is very long as well, certainly far longer than any of the other quotes in the section. It seems more to be redefining antisemitism than specifically defending Atzmon as well.
CarolM: Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise and NPOV would suggest that if one organization attacks Atzmon and another defends him, that defense should be included. And I think it is a clear defense of Atzmon.
Drsmoo: The line Atzmon denies he is an antisemite and says "I'm anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews," comparing "Jewish ideology" to "Nazi ideology," which is "driving our planet into a catastrophe." is extremely POV, and seems to make it sound as if the article is stating that "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe"
CarolM: Proper use of the “catastrophe” quotes deserves it’s whole section. I'm not sure which use of the quote (old, current, mine?) Drsmoo is referring to above, so all I can do is give you the whole original quote. It seems to me Atzmon is making exactly the statement Drsmoo objects to:
So hopefully this finally clears up these here-to-fore unexpressed attribution issues of Drsmoo?? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 21:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
--
|
The original statement was that Several of Atzmon's statements regarding Israel, Zionism and "Jewishness" have triggered allegations of antisemitism.
Is Atzmon Anti-Israel, yes, is Atzmon Anti-Zionist, yes, is Atzmon Anti-Jewish, yes. Has Atzmon been called Antisemitic(anti Jewish) for his statements about Israel or Zionism, no. So that line doesn't work. His Anti-Zionist and anti Israel rhetoric should certainly be, and is, included, but the line that his statements regarding Israel and Zionism have triggered allegations of antisemitism is factually wrong. His statements about Jewishness have however. Drsmoo ( talk) 20:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Atzmon does seem to mention Jewishness per se, Carol. And no, I can't make a decision for you; if Drsmoo isn't happy with phrasing, then that should be discussed. I can't make him (or her) happy. m.o.p 01:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
---
A proposed change to the line:
Several of Atzmon's statements regarding " Jewishness" have triggered allegations of antisemitism [1] [2] [3] Drsmoo ( talk) 19:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
+
As she does not feel it is going her way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation#Problems_with_an_.22informal.22_mediation
Sorry :( Drsmoo ( talk) 19:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
<backdent>As usual, you can't just say "I choose not to go into formal mediation." You have to engage in exaggerated personal attacks. Since the sources in question don't seem to part of this mediation I'll reply on the talk page. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 23:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
<backdent> As I wrote on Gilad Atzmon talk page about Wikiquette Alert on Drsmoo: Even a stubborn Taurus the bull like me can only take so much. Given Drsmoo's extreme hostility towards Atzmon which has led to a number of warnings against him, and the incredibily WP:uncivil, WP:tenditious, WP:Disruptive editing on his part, I have to seriously look at whether it's worth editing this article anymore. How can one deal with a smokescream of obsfucating accusations and denials week after week after week. It's absurd. At this point I think just working to get some administrative action going is the only recourse. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 12:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Given that Drsmoo never bothered to answer Master of Puppet's question at this November 23 diff and given that Drsmoo continued to attack both me and Atzmon elsewhere as mentioned above and at both Wikiettique Alerts, I think we can assume this mediation is over. It is a particularly difficult one given difficulty of getting past behavioral issues that even the most experienced editor in Formal Mediation might not have been able to deal with. So no knock on Master of Puppets. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I am user of article SEGi University College.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEGi_University_College
Seem my article get deletion 3 times. May I know the guidance to make or post an article stay like other such as Talylor's University College, INTI University College and etc?
I will rewrite an article without Copy right or advertise purpose.
Besides, my IP address get block to create article again, any
requirement to unblock it?
Please advice and email me for any request needed. Thanks.
Best Regards,
Did Hossama re-create that article yet again despite the advice I gave? You just can't help some people, can you? Mjroots ( talk) 16:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Master of Puppets, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek. 69 talk 23:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 06:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 15:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Excellent User Page Award | |
Treat for the eyes, but a bit heavy. My broswer went on a holiday. :P -- yousaf465' 02:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC) |
Yes it did took a while previously, this time it loaded rather quickly, cached might be.-- yousaf465' 04:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Under what ground? Lar's criteria are -very- clear. I have met every single one. Ottava Rima ( talk) 04:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings.
I have asked some questions at this section of my talk page.
Thank you.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 13:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven is not a "User in good standing." WP:SPI has determined that PennySeven is User:Nicolaas Smith, who was indeffed for "Disruptive editing." PennySeven was given a second chance, but the end of the indef-block should be considered the time that the second chance started. I suggest you move this horribly disruptive single-purpose disruptive account to not-a-certifier unless the requirements are waived. Hipocrite ( talk) 21:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
What possessed me to actually check the edit summary is unknown, but it was well worth the giggle. What the hell are you doing in Winnipeg anyhow? Hope it's fun, and stay warm!
Nja
247
21:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you review my formulation of the 1RR limit on user Radiopathy, and make additions/modifications if needed ? Abecedare ( talk) 22:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Radiopathy avoiding sanctions. Thank you.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Haha, that was awesome. And I do like Taylor Swift too. I will say I don't really listen to Jonas Brothers, though I can't honestly say that I don't like them because I don't really listen to it. I prefer to think that I can like anything. Anakinjmt ( talk) 17:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to find a source explaining that it's the start of winter in Peshawar, Pakistan, and add that to the article? Is this the rule of Wikipedia? Also, I have to get a source for each person who died explaining they were doing winter shopping? Hope you know this is ridiculous!-- Jrkso ( talk) 23:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you making up your own rules? I've provided a reliable source ( Karen DeYoung and Haq Nawaz Khan of The Washington Post) which indicated that women were doing winter shopping.
“ | At Lady Reading Hospital, a student named Ahmed Jan, 25, said a relative of his had been killed in the bombing. He said she was a teacher who had gone to the market to buy winter clothes for her two children. [12] | ” |
People do winter shopping before the cold winter weather begins, usually one month in advance, and in the case of Peshawar the cold season starts now. You probably live in India where you don't see winter, but in many places of the world people know what winter shopping means. Why did you remove the source? Why don't you use the talk page instead of removing information from articles? This isn't good.-- Jrkso ( talk) 14:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Who do you want to verify this to? You want to verify with sources that it's the start of winter in Peshawar? Or that people in Peshawar go to markets to shop there? Again, this is very ridiculous. I know what OR is. The fact is I've provided a very reliable source (above) clearly mentioning that women were doing winter shopping and even you agreed. So what's the problem then? Why are you so much against this? It's also very ridiculous to ask for about 100 sources, each one mentioning each victim what they were shopping. The information I've added said "majority of the victims were women and children doing winter shopping". All the sources say the site of the blast was an exclusive-for-women shopping area. The sources also say majority of the victims were women and children. So why are you bringing this Wikipedia:No original research to me?-- Jrkso ( talk) 20:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You are the one who removed a source from the article which mentioned women doing winter shopping. That is a violation of Wikipedia rules and you know it.-- Jrkso ( talk) 20:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Nobody said all the people were doing winter shopping. You want me to write in the article that one single woman was doing her winter shopping? Just because you are an administrator doesn't mean you're always right? You are again removing sourced information after I told you to please stop. What is your problem?-- Jrkso ( talk) 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
You now understand my intention, I only wanted readers to get a little idea that it was sort of a busy day, more shoppers than usual due to the coming of winter season. Thanks for helping.-- Jrkso ( talk) 07:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello! The addition of a shadow effect has made your signature much more difficult to read, especially in Firefox. Can you please remove it or otherwise tweak the appearance for improved legibility? — David Levy 00:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
After a long wikibreak, I have decided that coming back to Wikipedia is the best thing to do. I have been incredulously stressed out the time I was gone, and I either a) didn't have the time b)didn't have the attention span due to stress or c)was at camp. Tell me the basics of what's changed here, and I'll get back to editing soon! Jonathan321 (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
What the hell? We're going to have flagged revisions for the whole wiki? Is this some kind of Practical joke you're pulling on me here? This will not only practically destroy Wikipedia, it will also be a blatant violation of WP:AGF. Our only hope is that (and this will come true) that it created such a backlog that we will stop it within the first few days. Jonathan321 (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Since you closed the AfD for Sonic the Hedgehog (film), I would like to ask you to consider salting it. This is the fourth time the hoax has been deleted and I'm guessing it's just going to come back again if we leave it as is. Thanks and have a great week! — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 06:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. It's less intriguing than it seems. Durova 355 21:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Heya MoP we played JK2 together :D You adopted me here last year, I'm sure you almost can't remember me.
So how long have you been playing JK2? ~Speed@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speeda psx ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I know i'm acting like a wimp, but could you unblock 69.113.79.227 (IP adress)? Some of his/her's edits have been constructive. I believe this vandalism happened when someone kept deleting his constructive work on the Sipmsons' Episode "The Burns And The Bees" and this triggered angryness and released it by vandalising people's pages.I'm no admin, but I think he/she should be unblocked. Tell me if you agree or disagree. Thanks! S H 6 04:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem! You should deal with it since, well, I suck. S H 6 07:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Please have a look at User:SarekOfVulcan/Recall_petition_(October_2009) and the talk. I think it may be time for the clerk to do a close, as I believe that it's been well over 5 days since the petition was initiated and there are not 6 certified petitioners. I even suggested a wording to use :) Thanks! ++ Lar: t/ c 17:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I dream of horses @ 19:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for responding over at my talk page. I've added references as you suggested. Would you mind helping to check the page again before I restore it? Thanks. Hboon ( talk) 09:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk)
08:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I hope you don't mind, but I moved your comment from User talk:Megs91/Sandbox to User talk:Megs91 as it is the actual user talk of the author, and they probably read it there more likely. I put to the edit summary where your comment is from. Ilyushka88 talk 18:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been able to respond to the comments; however, I think that your comments and a couple others were incorrect, the tournament is very large for a tennis tournament and attacts a good deal of local interest and press coverage. I have no idea who you are or why you deleted my website - actually, I really am not sure if you were the person that did that. You did write that you did some research; I would suggest that you google "cryan tennis," that should give you some information. I can't imagine that you did or why you would or that you'd have any interest at all, it is a local tournament, only of interest to those in the Central Jersey area and those that have played the tournament, those that play the tournament are from all over the world, the woman that won it this year was from Russia and had been 48th in the world just a couple of years ago. In any case, it's an interesting process, very informative about Wikipedia and how it seems to work. Good luck to you, Master of Puppets! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jncryan1958 ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I was specifically working on the GameHouse article and since RealArcade is no more, some of the info needs to be moved there to that article because of the merger —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonHockeyGuy ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey m.o.p, this is in reply to the suggestion/help you gave me. Hope I'm supposed to reply here. I took some time to gather from revision diffs for you -- or should I be presenting them elsewhere/to someone else? Anyways, here they are by "category" I guess and sorry if I did this wrong.
Also thought I'd mention while I was looking for the specific links apparently others have complained or warned her/him about vandalism. There seems to be several warnings already if you look through talk-page history, actually, i.e:
I think one of the main issues here, and I don't mean to be condesceding to the editor, is that they view Wikipedia as a community gathering site or something... at least, they have referred to the articles as "their community" and "our community" and the articles as "our pages" several times and has been editing the pages to reflect a kind of "support group" or "resource centre" ... i.e see the bottom of the Bisexuality and Bisexual community page (though I fixed the latter up a tad a moment ago) ... I could be wrong, but maybe they're used to editing more community-oriented wikis i.e. Bisexuality Wikipedia and all they need is to be told this Wiki is different? I don't know but this is giving me a huge headache. I'm willing to help a tad more with this such as bringing it to the right person but I've gotten quite sick of it quite fast, I think I'm going back to just copy-editing from now on haha. Again, thanks for your help. Would prefer reply on my talk but here is fine too. Avalik ( talk) 12:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there; after reading the dialogue relating to block/unblock on this user's page, i am unsure if you intended to unblock her or not? Certainly you have not; no-one has. What was the intention? -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 16:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Goldkingtut5 has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Hello. As it is indicated in the policy, Wikipedia:Deletion review, I am addressing you first about a possible mistake you did in deleting the article for this band. Policy states that these matters should not be decided by head count vote. Since all the objections to the article were addressed in the discussion, I don't understand the basis for your decision. All the last posts were between two users defending the article and one who was against it. Thank you. Maziotis ( talk) 23:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
No break yet for thanksgiving? :( Yes, try and come to IRC when you can!-- fetch comms ☛ 21:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
I dream of horses @ has given you a
Turkey! Turkeys promate
WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving! Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{ subst: User:December21st2012Freak/Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
|
Hi there. I'm User:Addihockey10 and I'm looking for an admin coach. Would you be willing to coach me? Thanks! -- Addi hockey 10 (review me!) 21:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, yesterday you deleted this article per CSD G4. Today it has been recreated again. The creator, User:Alastair Haines, has twice removed the db tag and now an anonymous IP has done this for the third time (probably to avoid bot interference and quite possibly this is just the article creator himself). There is a rambling discussion on his talk page and now a "semi-AfD" on the talk page of the article. I don't have the time nor the gusto to get into a fight over this, but it seems that Haines is violating all kind of policies with this repeated recreation of deleted material (not to speak of possible sockpuppetry and a 3RR violation). Perhaps you can look into this. Thanks. -- Crusio ( talk) 16:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I need some archives for my talk page. I have 81 messages on them....
Thanks, Wikidude 57 S B C 20:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi MoP, I was doing a bit of tidying up of Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Requests_for_Coaching, and the entry for BarkingFish says that you are coaching them.
I have contacted BarkingFish, but had no reply yet. If you are admin coaching them, could you please remove their entry on the Requests page, and add an entry on the Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status page? If you are not coaching them, could you remove the "admin comment" on their entry?
On the message at their talk page, I basically asked them if they could do the same - and if they are no longer interested in receiving coaching, if they could remove their name from the list.
It would be nice to get this sorted out - it's only a little thing, but it'd be good to get the list properly tidied up.
I have also suggested here that if someone has not updated their "last visited this page" date in 6 months (or if they have been inactive for 4 months) that their name should be removed from the list (at the moment, if they haven't visited in 6 weeks, their name is move from the current requests to the older requests.
At the moment, their are about 100 "older' requests - removing those more than 6 months old would leave about 20!
If you have any comment on this suggestion, please feel free to leave a message on the thread!
Regards, -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 14:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 01:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
December21st2012Freak
Happy Holidays! is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
December21st2012Freak Happy Holidays! 00:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
December21st2012Freak Happy New Year! at ≈ 00:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you do an ad for WP:AIRPORTS? If you would, that would be great. - Presidentman ( talk) Random Picture of the Day 17:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello this is Clifton Corbin, the guy that created the Keezy19 musician article back in October. I would like to know why you deleted my wiki?? I had all of the importance needed. Can you please restore it or tell me what i have to do to get it back, or help me with it? Please, I'd really appreciate that. Thanx. If you can call me at 7577682261 or email me at cajakzent@aol.com so you can walk me through it because i dont know what to do now. Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123088filez ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Third time's the charm, eh, buddy? :) Jonathan321 (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I see you were involved in saving this article last time it was up for AfD. In the intervening two years there doesn't seem to have been much improvement in the article, or evidence that this young composer has gone on to demonstrate notability, but it would be good if you could cast an eye over things again. Here's the blurb...
An article that you have been involved in editing, Joel Rust, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Rust (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Deskford ( talk) 14:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
Hi, it's been awhile since I've been on Wikipedia, but could you coach me again? All I need is basically a "checklist" to complete before going up for RfA once again. Thanks! -- Addi hockey 10 04:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Friendly heads-up {{ Imagemap}} is deprecated and nominated for deletion. It has been superceded by changes to the File namespace and I wanted to let you know, since you have a transclusion on your userpage or user talk. If you need to respond to this message, please do so on my talk. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 21:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Friendly heads-up {{ Imagemap}} is deprecated and nominated for deletion. It has been superceded by changes to the File namespace and I wanted to let you know, since you have a transclusion on your userpage or user talk. If you need to respond to this message, please do so on my talk. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 21:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Master of Puppets/Talk/Archive! Just reminding you that you are listed as a member of the Random Picture of the Day! It would be great if you could add a picture or too! Put the template on your user page with {{User:Presidentman/potd/template}}, and encourage other users to add pictures. You can also put our userbox on your userpage using: {{User:Presidentman/Ubx/RPOTD}}. Hopefully you'll help out! Talk to you later, Presidentman ( talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC) - Talk to you later, Presidentman ( talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
As an user who enacted the sanction from this discussion, this is to let you know of Grundle2600's topic ban modification request. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Master of Puppets,
I've started to clean up the Adopters' list. You appear to appear to have been editing only sporadically in the last months. I wonder if you're still interested in adopting new users. If you're not interested any more, would you mind removing yourself? Thank you and happy editing, Snowolf How can I help? 12:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Master of Puppets: I was out visiting and went to sign a gbook and saw your sig. Im a (ok I'll be honest) BIG get on the band wagon after the "Black Album" Metallica fan. I was looking for your book but all I found was a vandal's playground, If thats your guestbook I will be glad to sign it. My request is I would love to have your's, if you would Here Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
A tag has been placed on The Fresh Beat Band, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{
hangon}}
on the top of
The Fresh Beat Band and leave a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any
citations from independent
reliable sources to ensure that the article will be
verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
ClapBoy380 (
talk)
15:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
A tag has been placed on Jay-Z, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{
hangon}}
on the top of
Jay-Z and leave a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any
citations from independent
reliable sources to ensure that the article will be
verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
ClapBoy380 (
talk)
15:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
A particuilarly nasty piece of vandalism, yet again, on The Marriage of Figaro article. Viva-Verdi ( talk) 16:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Master of Puppets - I'd like to reconnect with you from an initial conversation a VERY long time ago about finally submitting my first article for the organization I'm a part of, Pragma Systems. Can you help in accomplishing this? Andrewtull ( talk) 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic
Continued Problems Malke 2010: What to do?.
Toddst1 (
talk)
00:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You deleted Asil training camp. The entry you left in the deletion log says: "deleted " Asil training camp" (Speedy deleted per CSD G6, deleting page per result of AfD discussion.(TW))" If the reason you deleted it was that it was a redirect to a deleted page do you believe it lies within your authority to userify the deleted page it pointed to, to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/Asil training camp? If so I would be grateful if you would userify the base article.
Thanks Geo Swan ( talk) 17:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if your username was after the Metallica album. Wikidude 57 S B C 02:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Conkern65 ( talk) 17:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted my page 'Fil OK' in Oct 2008. I've had many musical releases since then and 2 albums, and would very much appreciate it if you would re-instate me if this is possible? Thanks, Fil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fil okay ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Word has got around that you are an expert with making Wikipedia Ads. Wikipedia: WikiProject Cryptozoology needs an ad for our project. If you are interested, the specifications are here, at the bottom of the page..--Gniniv ( talk) 05:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm inviting you to participate in my WP:Editor review, your participation and comments would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! -- Addi hockey 10 20:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
This is going to need both a source and a license; something along the lines of "I created this work entirely by myself", and then a suitable copyright tag. Courcelles 17:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
o.m.g. it's m.o.p.
Are you back to stay, or just dropping in? / ƒETCH COMMS / 00:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
We've just had this user pop onto IRC - it seems he's a newbie who was wanting to change their username - nothing more. As such, I've removed the sockpuppet tag from the page, and replaced it with an alternate account tag. The account is still blocked though as he said himself that he's not going to use it, so there's no point in unblocking.
Ta
[ stwalkerster| talk 03:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like to complain (I assume you are an admin) to you about Jingiby, Todor and the other two - they do not seem to understand that, according to wikipedia's rules, all significant views must be mentioned in an article. i do not know if you are aware of what Bulgarians believe. but let me tell you this - a lot of Bulgarians do not see themselves as a slavic nation (if you dont believe, ask some yourself, or take a look on the net). This, together with the fact that a special effort was put by a team of scientists (from the Bulgarian academy of sciences - if you do not believe me, phone them or email them) to go to a couple of Iranic countries to do genetic research 9amongst other research) to gather evidence for the significant view that Bulgarians are not Slavic, but closer to Iranic peoples. The team concluded, from analysing their data, that Bulgarians are closer to Iranic peoples than Slavic, as matter of fact they basically said that Bulgarians are very far from Slavs. I also have proper sources for this Now, those editors consistently remove this sourced info and basically not giving any other theories a chance - what looks like pushing only one POV. Clearly, according to peoples bliefs, and more importantly respected genetic research, shows that there are other views and theories. In wikipedia's rules it clearly states that for an article to be NPOV, all signifant views must be mentioned - their excuse all the time is that my sources are not proper, compliant sources, but I over and over again keep telling them, that according to wiki rules (and I checked) my sources are comoliant - it says that you are allowed to use major newspapers as sources - and novinite.com is a major one. Those editors are not willing to aknowledge other theories and they keep removingmy content without proper explanation as to why they are doing it - ll the time just saying I vandalise (to which I take great offence, as I am nothing like vandals on wikipedia) and that my sources are not compliant. Basically i explained why what they are doing is wrong, but they have not once explained to me why what I am doing is "wrong", just replying with one sentence replies all the time. Basically he is not arguing about what the source itself says, but just that it is not a compliant source (but surely in such a major newspaper they would not invent a story like that from scratch - that a big expedition happened, by Bulgarian scientists and that they did genetic research - surely the nespaper, a major one like that, first checked the information before putting it one, and if they dont check it then surely they stand at a risk for losing prestige, respect and millions of euros - for putting false info, thus making people angry. Strangely enough, I recently also made an edit to Bulgaria page adding the info that recently the alleged remains of St John the Baptist was found in Bulgaria (but not 100% confirmed) I added that info plus a source from BBC, and no one, including Jingiby, had a problem with that (he didnt argue about the source at all and left it, but for the other source, which is equally compliant, he argues a lot - all signifying that he hasnt really got a problem with the source itself, but with the information itself (because if he did have a problem with the source then he would have argued about all electronic newspapers, including the BBC one - the story and logic of the situation of that edit and the edit that there is another significant view of the origins of the Bulgarians is the same logic. jingiby and Todor just dont want to aknowledge another view, which is significant, and go so far as to downright remove it from the article and its source. Please, I have a favour to ask of you - to truly understand this argument and to know all sides of it, please take a couple of minutes to read what i wrote to the editors - it will help in understanding this more - everything is below (and also please read all my comments to my edits on the Bulgarians page (oh, and by the way, I now realise that i did indeed break the 3 rever rule - i would like to humbly apologise for that action, I didn't realise I did it and would like to say sorry for that): To Jingiby (and thus Todor as well):
POV? Vandalsim??How are my edits POV?, when first of all - most Bulgarians DO NOT see themselves as Slavic (so majority agrees with me), and second of all - science (not speculation and fringe theories) were used to produce the DNA evidence and on top of that there were two sources - which comply with wiki rules - I checked. I am adamant in adding this as Bulgarians have a right to know the latest genetic research of their race - it is fair that they should be aware of this research, don't you think - so please explain to me how it is POV - perhaps you are using POV by ignoring 2 compliant sources and by ignoring genetic evidence - when one uses their logic here then it looks like you are using POV, not me - I backed up my statement with 2 sources and like I said, many, many Bulgarians do not consider themselves Slavic. It seems shameful that this information and DNA evidence seems to be hated - a lot of Bulgarians and people in general might not be aware of this genetic research at the moment as it is still recent - so reading it on wikipedia - which is free and very easy to access, seems like a good place to read up on this stuff - so back to my other point - it should remain here so that Bulgarians can read it and then know more sides of the story - they have a right to know about the research that is going on about their race - it is only fair!
It seems quite selfish, shameful really, that you should try to hide this from wikipedia, thus removing any chance that a Bulgarian would read it - thus taking away a basic right to know more about their race - and then to use the excuse that it is POV (POV is a very sensitive issue on wiki, so if someone uses it in an argument they gain an unfair advantage a lot of the time), just because you don't agree with it. It is ridiculous to hide this and remove the right of people to know about it and to know more sides of the story {one side of the story - like you are trying to convey (even more so by ignoring the DNA evidence - which by the way is taken so seriously that it is used to identify criminals etc which determines if a person goes to jail or not) is actually POV, while NPOV is writing about the other side of the story as well - in this case - the genetic research}. I don't know if you are ware, but the fact is many, many Bulgarians consider the Slavic theory to be ridiculous and do not consider themselves Slavic at all, and in that regard also: including one side but not the other side of the story - only supports one view (that they are Slavic) while there is prejudice against another - POV.
I simply just don't see what is hard to understand - the DNA evidence clearly shows that modern Bulgarians are not Slavs - why do you ignore that and say I push a POV - that is a highly unfair and unjust accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is not a forum, but encyclopedia. Please, read Wikipedia rules about original research and reliable sources. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Jingby (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, and all due respect, canyou go read the wiki rules and see what are compliant sources. I checked well, and it turns out that the source from novinite.com is perfectly acceptable. And please go read the section (forgot exactly which one, but you will find it) where it says that all significant viewpoint have to be mentioned in an article for it to be neutral (and it surely is significant if there is genetic evidence and also id a lot of Bulgarians identify themselves as non Slavic). i dont see what the problem is here - I have read the rules and am respecting them by adding all signifiant viewpoints - what is wrong with that. You just say, abruptly, that I use "extreme POV and fringe theories", but how is it POV, and let alone extreme, if I abide to the wiki rules by adding all viewpoints, plus adding source to boot. And how is is fringe theories if there is genetic evidence and if many Bulgarians identify themselves as non Slavic (if no Bulgarians identified themselves as non Slavic and if only one person opposed the slavic theory, then yes - it will be fringe, but that is not the case here). It seems that you don't have any argument to back up your claims of me using POV and that it is a fringe theory - your response to my edit is just immediate revert, with no discussion, or understanding of what I am saying, plus you give no explanations or reasons (you just say extreme POV and fringe theories) - a behavior which is not rational or appropriate (it seems you just oppose all views but your own, and very strongly at that, you just want to have one viewpoint in the article, which actually goes against the rules - who is using POV now?) - from your behavior it seems that you have some prejudices to other viewpoints and theories, to such a degree that you revert it abruptly without any discussion or understanding - all of this is not right, I think, for a wikipedia editor. And by the way I know that this is not a forum, no kidding, i was simply explaining my what I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Novinite.com is not a reliable source for DNA-study. Please, check again. Jingby (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
i did check time and time again, it says in wikirules that you can use a well known newspaper as a source. If you hate this so much then why dont you phone the team who did it and get further clarification, talk to them etc and then come back and discuss here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This is what I wrote to Todor - it is absolutely valid for you as well, and please reasd it, to understand my views. Also you have not ONCE explained how, what I am doing, is vandalism, but I can explain how what you are doing is vandalsim, if you read the following below. You keep calling me a vandal (without explaining and backing up that statement) - something to which I, as any respectful editor on wiki, takes great offence - offending someone on wikipedia is not acceptable. And how am i a vandal (something which, it seems, you cannot explain) when I follow all of wikiepdia's rules, especially the neutrality one. By pushing your POV (that is: putting only one view instead of all significant views - significant because it is backed up by genetic research (read more on it below) and because many Bulgarians do not consider themselves as slavic) and failing to aknow;edge another view, which is significant and is backed up by sources - here is a more complete and detailed source, with slightly more info http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117903) you are disrespecting wikipedia's rules, as simple as that, and ruining this article. I simply cannot fathom why it is so hard for you to understand other views - failure to aknowledge other significant views, especially when they are backed up by compliant sources, and deleting those sources and also completely erasing that view from an article is what really constitutes vandalism, I am sure anyone would agree here. I am sick of you calling me a vandal when you do not explain yourself properly - on why I am a vandal. if you read below you would see why i am not a vandal at all, please read below.
Hi I have noted and read the past edits and comments between Kreuzkümmel and you on Bulgarians article - and I must say i am appalled at the fact that on your comment you said "such edits are NOT welcome" - what gives you the right to say what is welcome on the article? - maybe it is not welcome for you, but for others it is welcome - you cant just speak out like that for everyone. I see and understand that he was trying to say that Bulgarians are not Slavic ethnically but culturally in terms of language. Now I dont know if you are even part of Bulgarian society, because if you are then you would have been aware that a lot ( a high number) of Bulgarians don't see themselves as Slavic at all - so tell me then why such edits are NOT welcome - in that sense you are then going against a major opinion of the Bulgarians themselves (those that dont consider themselves Slavic). If you had looked yourself in the mirror more often and actually had taken notice, then you would have seen that Bulgarians dont even look like Slavs - even in the wiki articles it says that Bulgarian "slavs" look quite different to the rest of the slavs - gee, I wonder why, It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand why, all it actually takes is common sense and logic - proper rational thought. Now to my next point - I don't know if you are even aware, but there was a scientific Bulgarian expedition, Tangra, that collected DNA data from Pamirian/Iranic people last year (there were only scientists and doctors in the team, no kooks, speculators or anything like that) and they concluded, after analyzing all the DNA data ( a scientific, not fringe process) that modern day Bulgarians are very far from Slavs, genetically, and very close to Iranic/Pamirian peoples, genetically. DNA evidence is not some crack pot thing - it is a very serious study and discipline which is used by forensic pathologists (doctors - who are very respected and are scientists) for many reasons - such as to identify ancestry, to identify a murderer (which lead to a decision whether a person goes to jail or not, so it is very important and DNA science is taken seriously). Read about it here:
http://thearchaeologicalbox.com/en/news/dna-analysis-reveals-pamir-origin-bulgarians and
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117006 I just don't see what is difficult to understand here - DNA evidence simply shows that the Bulgarians are not Slavs (which would explain why, in the wiki articles, it says they are different in terms of genetic from other Slavs, and which would also explain why Bulgarians simply do not look Slavic). It seems you are basing your argument not on reasoning, interpretation of data and rational thought, but on some prejudices that you might have, who knows. The fact that you said such edits are not welcomed on wikipedia, indicates (perhaps clearly) that you are not willing to listen and understand other sides of the story, but only know and believe your opinion to such an extent that if anyone says something contrary to what you think, then you say that edit is not welcomed - all this indicates that you have a firm POV, not NPOV, because if you had NPOV, then you would allow the other side of the story to be on the article and would have allowed (and not resisted) that edit to be read by Bulgarians themselves who might stumble onto this page - Bulgarians who have a basic right to know all the research that is happening on their racial identity. What you seem to like doing is you want to hide this and keep it way from any Bulgarian who might read something like this - so you are in effect, forcing them to read and understand only one theory (of their origins/reace etc) in this article (which is POV according to the wiki rule page which by the way I read - it says all relevant major viewpoints and theories must be mentioned to be NPOV, if it is not done that way then it is simply POV), instead of adding all relevant (sourced) viewpointw that deal with the topic - i.e: adding the sourced info that talks about the 2010 DNA research (the two sources, after checking the wiki rule pages, actually comply as proper sources). Basically what I am saying is that if you only include one theory (that they are Slavic), you are then removing the basic right of Bulgarians (who might read this) to see and read all the viewpoints, instead of just one, which is very unfair and if it removed over and over - then it is simply shameful. For this article to be fair to all viewpoints (especially if they are backed up by DNA research and compliant sources) need to be mentioned - NPOV, not just one (that they are Slavs), otherwise it will be POV. thank you for reading and hopefully understanding Kind Regards 146.232.75.208 (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
what vandalismI am quite frankly getting sick and tired of your nonsense - you insult me (bad behaviour in wiki) by saying my edits are vandalism - let me tell you what vandalism is - "On Wikipedia, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. Vandalism includes the addition, removal, or other modification of the text or other material that is either humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, spam or promotion of a subject, or that is of an offensive, humiliating, or otherwise degrading nature." None of what I am doing constitues that - my edits are neither humerous, nonsensical (as I use sourced DNA information to back my statement - by the way if a theory is backed up by DNA evidence it immediately becomes a significant view anyway - it seems, according to you, that DNA is useless, as you are ignoring it and never commenting on it; but how can it be useless if it is used in medicine and forensics - which are two very respected fields and are so important that they decide if a person is prosecuted or not). I have tried to reason with you and show you the wiki ruels of neutrality (and ignore all rules rule, if it goes agains common sense), but you dont seem to want to cooperate an d insult me by saying my edits constitute vandalism - never once did you actually stop and properly explain how what i am doing is apperently wrong (you never once explained how my edits constitute vandalism) while I explained, clearly, what you are doing is wrong - you seem to be a ultra nationalist of the slavic theory (inmy opinion, no offence), and I cant fathom why, since in the article itself it says the DNA of the "slavic" Bulgarians is seperetated from the tight cluster of other slavic peoples, yet you still cling to this theory so much that you are not willing to listen and rationally examin other viewpoints (which are pretty significant if DNA research backs them up) - a behaviour, which I am sure everyone will agree, is not acceptable on wikipedia - let me summarise - I have explained my rational thoughts on the mattr plus I explained how what you are doing is wrong - but you have not done any of those things. Let me ask you again (before you call me a vandal unjustly gain) - how is my theory a fringe theory (and it is not kust my theory) when I have compliant sources with DNA research to back up my statements (need I reming you of the respect that DNA research gets in medicne and forensics), and on top of that - many Bulgarians do not see themselves as slavic - so I do not see the sense why you people (who are just 3 people it seems) continue to push a theory that goes against what a lot of people believe and more importantly, a theory that goes against DNA research. True, the slavic theory is a significant viewpoint, but there is another one too, which you guys unjustly remove without proper explanations on why you are doing so (after all it just follows the wikipedia neutrality rules, so I simply just cannot understand why you guys are doing it) and then you call me a vandal - how is that, in any way, fair? And to make the matter more confusing, all that you are doing all the time is just calling me a vandal, POV, vandal, POV, without ever discussing the ppoints I made - to any rational person it would seem that the behaviour you are displaying is senseless. I am not looking for any fights here or any arguments, neither do I like to "vandalise" pages, I have never done that and get irritated when people doing (by adding insults, crude humour, blanking etc). I am not that type of person who you seem to think I am. I am just following the good order of things and tryong to make the page better, while you just call me a vandal the whole time, never properly explaining anything, and then you people say that I go against editor concensus - what consencus when I am an editor and I dont agree, neither do other people it seems. I have not, so far (and am not planning to), gone against any wikipedia rules, but you people seem to be going against them, when you remove sourced info of a significant viewpont (I have already explained how it is significant and not fringe) and when you do not, even briefly, aknowledge special genetic research that was done on the matter. I ask you - if youare so againt this (as it would surely seem) why dont yougo phone the team that did the research, talk to them and have a discussion about the whole matter and then come back to discuss here. As a matter of fact it would seem that you have not even read the sources (everyone in the team, by the way, was a scientist or a doctor, who are scientist anyway). I do not undertsand why you just dont understand what I am saying - it is not fair, and goes against the rules, to only add and push one viewpoint as you are doing, and ignore the others - ignoring other research and scientific viewpoints can lead to scientific inncacuracy and can lead to many unwanted mistakes in the future
Read this again: http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117903 It is an updated page that contains more info.
PLUS READ ALL MY COMMENTS ON THE EDITS
If after all this you still think that i am a vandal, then (in my opinion) you don't belong in wikipedia, especially if you offend people with no just reason (by not explaing yourself) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Please, provide reliable, scientific, secondary University sources in English language supporting your extreme views. News on IT free-site in Bulgaria are nothing, but a reliable reference. Stop blind reverds. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Oh my word?Are you slow??Or are you trying to be slow? HOW MANY TIMES must I say to you (I am sick of it now) that my sources are COMPLIANT to wikipedia, did you get that? I said COMPLIANT, COMPLIANT, COMPLIANT, I will say it again: COMPLIANT. Now do you finally understand that my sources are fine. Oh my word - you do it again, another statement without an explanation: "blind revert" - a senseless statement as I have just put in a massive effort of explaining to you why they are not blind, and you still think my edits constitute vandalism. I have now grabbed my hair in frustration and awe on how you can still say these things without EXPLAINING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
No, they arn't. Fullstop. Jingby (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
There you go again - you say my revert is a "blind one" - I have JUST PUT IN A MASSIVE EFFORT OF EXPLAINING TO YOU why they cannot possibly be blind and you still think my edits constitute vandalsim - I am now in awe and in shock at how you can possibly say that after you have just read what I had to say. I am also SICK AND TIRED FOR EXPLAINING FOR THE 20TH TIME THAT MY SOURCES ARE COMLIANT, compliant, compliant - I will say it another five times so that it can go into your head - compliant, compliant, compliant, complaint, compliant - did you get that???? I said my sources are compliant, compliant.
I have read the wiki rules and made sure that a newspaper article (from a MAJOR newspaper by the way) is a compliant source - you just dont seem to understand that do you, nowhere does it say you JUST have to use university sources and nothing else, does it now?
By the way, in the Bulgarian article of Bulgarians, it says in the lede that they are a Balkan people 0 you left it like that there so why are you so adament in saying that they are slavic, and in the process ignoring wikipedia's rules? In general (in my opinion), it seems you are a hypocrite - you hate vandalism and try to remove it from various articles(something I respect), but in this case (in my opinion) you seem to be doing it yourself? What gives Jingiby? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
You know that by saying "no, they arent. Fullstop" that you really look like an uncooperative person, who knows and firmly stands by his belief and his belief only. Yet again you dont explain yourself in this whole argument - you just respond with one sentence replies all the time - looks to me like childish behaviour. To someone who just comes (from the outside, and looks at the argument for the first time randomly) and who might view the whole argument so far - it can look like you are very uncooperative and not willing to aknowledge other views. in essence, from the outside, if someone were to view everything so far, it would seem that your, not mine, behaviour is unnaceptable and constitutes vandalsim
I hope you understand my point here and am also asking for your help in solving this argument. It is just not fair that they all gang up on me and isist on only one view. Kind Regards 146.232.75.208 ( talk) 07:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry I deleted your statement on the talk page, I did it because it is a university's account, so I kinda didnt want other people to see my personal affairs. Thank you for understanding my side. Yes, I must create an account and I will do it soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 ( talk) 07:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC) I hope this helps - it is an updated version of the info, and another source is archaeologybox.com (that particular one I dont know if it is 100% compliant). Another source, which I am not 100% if it is compliant, is: http://dnes.dir.bg/news.php?id=6541326&fp=1 (I am not sure if that is a 'major" newspaper) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 ( talk) 07:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Also, i think it said on the one version of the info, that the research/expedition was initiated/controlled by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, so I do not see what all the commotion is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 ( talk) 07:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for all the things I did. I will try not to do this again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.15.30.150 ( talk) 07:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi again! I meant to say that I wouldn't like to be involved with the IP anymore because I find the content dispute itself unpleasant. Otherwise, I'd be glad to work with you and provide my opinion.
Yes, what you're proposing as a solution would be an improvement, but I don't think it would be enough of an improvement. I would not really find it completely acceptable if this theory is present on par with the dominant theory: that the Slavs did have a decisive factor in the formation of the Bulgarian ethnicity, at least on par with the Bulgars (Proto-Bulgarians). The theory that Slavs have had a "negligible" (per the IP's wording) ethnic contribution is very alternative, and whether Thracians were part of the Bulgarian ethnogenesis at all is a controversial issue among scholars. It's not really necessary to defend my point, but consider this: the Bulgarian language is a South Slavic language, which is part of a smooth dialect continuum with Macedonian and Serbian to the west.
I've done some research on the author of the theory, some Slavyan Stoilov (mentioned in the Novinite.com article), who appears to be a physician and who was part of the expedition which put forth the theory as the expedition's medic and a researcher of Bulgarian traditional medicine ( [13], Google Translate). This is hardly a person whose opinion on the ethnogenesis of Bulgarians should be respected, what's left given WP:UNDUE weight.
I still maintain, along with the three other editors who have reverted the IP, that this research is too fringe and not referenced well enough to be included in the article. Shortening and properly explaining Stoilov's research will improve the state of the article, but personally I don't think this will be enough.
Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 14:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)