Greetings,
The exact plan to replace this image is to look up the Commons categories Soviet prisoners of war of World War II, forced labour or Soviet prisoners of war of World War II and come up with a Free equivalent to the non-Free image you prevent from being deleted according to the policy. A good candidate would be File:Bundesarchiv Bild 192-208, KZ Mauthausen, Sowjetische Kriegsgefangene.jpg, or possibly File:Russians bury their fallen. Kollaanjoki 15.-16.7. 1944. Kollaanjoki 15 to 16.7. 1944..jpg.
That is what the fucking logic is. Rama ( talk) 17:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Howdy. I noticed this edit one of your bots made, and it made sense. Right after that though, a similar bot made this edit. I'm curious why that 2nd edit was made? It isn't a big deal, I'm just wondering.-- Rockfang ( talk) 12:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi Chillum - is this still the right place for Name Watcher Bot requests? Just noticed that the request page is set as different from the talk page (which redirects here to your talk). Thanks. 7 23:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC) reply
You're post was accidently bumped off by Giacomo. GoodDay ( talk) 20:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm becoming quite frustrate with User:Off2riorob and would like to ask for advice from someone who has interacted with this user in the past. After a previous Wikiquette alert and a discussion at AN/I, Off2riorob followed me today to an article where he or she was not involved to make personal attacks: "COi, is an essay, it is not big deal, there appears to be a lot of opinionated discussion here on the talk page, wikipedia is not an excuse to assert negatively on people that would intellectually eclipse us."
The statement was clearly directed at me and the timing leaves no room for doubt that harassment was the sole intended effect. As I learned from other users when I first encountered Off2riorob, this sort of thing is happening regularly. Can anything be done about it or do I just grin and bear? Thanks, Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 22:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Is is acceptable procedure for admins to just delete ANI sections they don't like? [ [1]]??? Thanks. Gerardw ( talk) 03:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Three admins thought it best that we didn't have yet another shitfest. Someone might disagree that it wasn't the best way to deal with it - that's fine. Chillum is quite obviously in the "actively deal with it" camp. But as for the general question of removing the ANI thread? Happens all the time. Editors don't have some sort of inherent "right" to start any thread they want. Tan | 39 15:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Ok fair enough, you had a good reason in your mind. However I will tell you now that you did not prevent any drama, you just drove it underground. It will be back later with stiff interest charges because the issue was never resolved. I am not against the idea of removing unhelpful threads, I just don't think pointing out an ongoing pattern of targeting a user is unhelpful. The last time Malleus came out of nowhere to take a jab at Roux it provoked Roux into a nasty response and they were both blocked, I want to avoid that. My advice was that if he ignored Malleus that the community would protect him. I would like it if that advice was accurate and not just a crazy dream of mine. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Actually I was involved in the previous ANI issue about the exact same thing, that is likely where my name came from. I am indeed sympathetic to anyone attacked on Wikipedia, it has happened to me and if I was not defended by the community I would have likely stopped coming here. I don't want a Wikipedia where the nasty users have pushed away the sensitive users, I have been on websites where this has happened and it kind of sucks. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I am sorry Gerardw, there is pretty much nothing I can do about this situation. I don't suggest you "get over it" as I think we should strive for something a little better, but I guess "pick your battles" would be good advice. I wish there was more I could do. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Tan, do not use my talk page to engage in name calling. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Out of curiosity, do you have some written statements or policies of how to prevent cases where administrators favor certain users in solving disputes ? -- PtBg ( talk) 15:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Btw what else would you recommend when a request for 3rd party opinion is refused and deleted. From my point of view unjustified. The dispute is between two editors, and the request is refused because it was declared as "incivil". I couldn't follow such request deletion, and I don't know of other opportunities. -- PtBg ( talk) 12:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Encyclopedias should never be a source for a serious academic, paper or otherwise. At most an encyclopedia is a starting point for serious research. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC) reply
You are also less likely to get help when a post like "So, shall I understand that the aim of deleting the requested third party opinion is to protect the user Megistias, and his approach ?!?" is your first communication with another editor. The simple willingness to assume good faith on the part of other editors will get you farther in what is being miscalled a jungle. -- 204.194.251.5 ( talk) 19:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply
[4] Giano 19:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Same user returns,
now inserting bad grammar,
again and again.
Different IPs,
But all Opel Telecom,
As were those before.
LouScheffer ( talk) 19:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't know why Blenheim Palace was brought up on that talk page, but I headed over and found it interesting. I expressed an interest in it, now I face a chance that I'll be banned from it! See the thread on WP:AN#Proposed article ban and interaction ban of Tbsdy, which got closed off due to general confusion and chaos, but which will apparently be reopened in 24 hours. Go figure huh? As you were the one being baited, you might want to keep an eye out on WP:AN for the next few days, I have no doubt that either Equazcion or Unitanode will be making another attempt, and in the last attempt that was made Unitanode expressed a desire to make bans on the talk page, ostensibly because he says that AN/I is a drama fest. Which I don't believe for a second, as I believe that he wanted to have a maximum chance of teaching me a lesson.
Anyway, just thought you might like to know. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure where exactly the off-wiki spamming accusation is. I didn't read Tbsdy's lengthy explanation of events. I'm assuming the email exchange between myself and Unitanode are what's being referred to, and are under suspicion now. I'm answering here because I feel this is a side issue that will likely turn into a lengthy tangent if placed in the thread at AN.
My emails with Unitanode concerned
That's pretty much it. I'm not too thrilled at the suspicion that private emails were some sort of conspiracy attempt, or that an administrator took those rather unfounded and paranoid suspicions seriously. But there you have it. Equazcion (talk) 15:35, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I am really not sure what either of you are seeking. I suspect TB pointed out such behavior because it was a mirror of the behavior that he was being accused of. If you make it more clear what you want from me then perhaps I can help you, but I think it is clear that we have different opinions on this issue. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi there,
maybe you could answer my above question? What to do to when someone comes and deletes a request for third party opinion ?
Thanks in advance -- PtBg ( talk) 16:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I am not suggesting that good faith can be achieved "when one of the parties constantly sabotages the discussion". I am saying that the third opinion service is only practical when both sides are assuming good faith. I also said you can go to WP:DRV where there is no requirement that you and the person you disagree with come to a compromise. You ask how you know if something is done by some random guy, just go to the talk page and you can see a button called "User contributions". Authority on Wikipedia comes from the community and it is the job of every Wikipedian to enforce the collective standards of our encyclopedia. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 01:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi!
I'm a fairly long term editor who has made (I hope) primarily constructive edits. I've been trying to maintain the Unobtainium page, but again an anonymous user has been making what I think are unhelpful edits. (You've semi-protected the page before to help with this). I've explained why I believe these are not helpful in the edit summary, asked for discussion on the talk page, and so on, but to no avail.
Now the anonymous user has taken a new tack, reverting my good faith edits on other pages. (See, for example, these contributions [5]. I am asking your advice - what is the best way to deal with this? Thanks, LouScheffer ( talk) 15:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi,
I have looked on the article Etiquette, but there is comming a crazy text:
"Brahma Kumaris are individuals of all ages and backgrounds who regularly attend classes at more than 8,500 centres of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University located in 110 countries.
It is a study spiritual knowledge that nurtures respect for all faith traditions, coherently ..."
This text is in the internet on the site:
www.bkwsu.org/
to find too.
I suppose, the problem is comming through the Expert-subject-multiple|date=September 2009 command, in the wikipedia article.
The same problem is to find on the articles:
- Information processing - Preservative - Personal armor
I am sorry that I can't repair the problem, possible you can fix it.
with friendly greetings from Germany, Sönke Rahn -- Soenke Rahn ( talk) 03:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply
"I see not ..." is a perfectly valid, albeit unusual, English construction. You are decidedly not a "fool" <g> as you seem to have feared. Collect ( talk) 16:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Priority fail
I merely wrote this haiku
Just to say hello
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 20:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Confusing Bruning
Always causes active thought
Part of the project.
-- Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 20:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Heh. "Use your damn brain!"
is haiku profanity
yet serves a purpose. ;-)
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 21:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't know who you are, but I'd appreciate you not editing my Talk Page. Apart from the presumption - I wouldn't dream of editing other users' Talk Pages - it's an extraordinary waste of energy, because even if I hadn't read the section you deleted (I had), the deletion would only have made me more interested in it.
Thanks. KD Tries Again ( talk) 22:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again reply
See? By the way, is it standard practice to remove all edits by a banned user? I can help out by reverting History of Logic to its state before he started editing it. KD Tries Again ( talk) 23:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Altering/removing my comment to make a point is not the same thing as removing edits by a banned editor, please don't do that. Historian of Logic was not "blocked", as an account, but was banned as a person when he made that post. It is nothing personal, I removed all his posts. I am sorry if I sounded patronizing, but I think my tone was subconsciously in response to the tone of your initial post here. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Greetings,
The exact plan to replace this image is to look up the Commons categories Soviet prisoners of war of World War II, forced labour or Soviet prisoners of war of World War II and come up with a Free equivalent to the non-Free image you prevent from being deleted according to the policy. A good candidate would be File:Bundesarchiv Bild 192-208, KZ Mauthausen, Sowjetische Kriegsgefangene.jpg, or possibly File:Russians bury their fallen. Kollaanjoki 15.-16.7. 1944. Kollaanjoki 15 to 16.7. 1944..jpg.
That is what the fucking logic is. Rama ( talk) 17:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Howdy. I noticed this edit one of your bots made, and it made sense. Right after that though, a similar bot made this edit. I'm curious why that 2nd edit was made? It isn't a big deal, I'm just wondering.-- Rockfang ( talk) 12:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi Chillum - is this still the right place for Name Watcher Bot requests? Just noticed that the request page is set as different from the talk page (which redirects here to your talk). Thanks. 7 23:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC) reply
You're post was accidently bumped off by Giacomo. GoodDay ( talk) 20:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm becoming quite frustrate with User:Off2riorob and would like to ask for advice from someone who has interacted with this user in the past. After a previous Wikiquette alert and a discussion at AN/I, Off2riorob followed me today to an article where he or she was not involved to make personal attacks: "COi, is an essay, it is not big deal, there appears to be a lot of opinionated discussion here on the talk page, wikipedia is not an excuse to assert negatively on people that would intellectually eclipse us."
The statement was clearly directed at me and the timing leaves no room for doubt that harassment was the sole intended effect. As I learned from other users when I first encountered Off2riorob, this sort of thing is happening regularly. Can anything be done about it or do I just grin and bear? Thanks, Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 22:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Is is acceptable procedure for admins to just delete ANI sections they don't like? [ [1]]??? Thanks. Gerardw ( talk) 03:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Three admins thought it best that we didn't have yet another shitfest. Someone might disagree that it wasn't the best way to deal with it - that's fine. Chillum is quite obviously in the "actively deal with it" camp. But as for the general question of removing the ANI thread? Happens all the time. Editors don't have some sort of inherent "right" to start any thread they want. Tan | 39 15:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Ok fair enough, you had a good reason in your mind. However I will tell you now that you did not prevent any drama, you just drove it underground. It will be back later with stiff interest charges because the issue was never resolved. I am not against the idea of removing unhelpful threads, I just don't think pointing out an ongoing pattern of targeting a user is unhelpful. The last time Malleus came out of nowhere to take a jab at Roux it provoked Roux into a nasty response and they were both blocked, I want to avoid that. My advice was that if he ignored Malleus that the community would protect him. I would like it if that advice was accurate and not just a crazy dream of mine. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Actually I was involved in the previous ANI issue about the exact same thing, that is likely where my name came from. I am indeed sympathetic to anyone attacked on Wikipedia, it has happened to me and if I was not defended by the community I would have likely stopped coming here. I don't want a Wikipedia where the nasty users have pushed away the sensitive users, I have been on websites where this has happened and it kind of sucks. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I am sorry Gerardw, there is pretty much nothing I can do about this situation. I don't suggest you "get over it" as I think we should strive for something a little better, but I guess "pick your battles" would be good advice. I wish there was more I could do. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Tan, do not use my talk page to engage in name calling. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Out of curiosity, do you have some written statements or policies of how to prevent cases where administrators favor certain users in solving disputes ? -- PtBg ( talk) 15:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Btw what else would you recommend when a request for 3rd party opinion is refused and deleted. From my point of view unjustified. The dispute is between two editors, and the request is refused because it was declared as "incivil". I couldn't follow such request deletion, and I don't know of other opportunities. -- PtBg ( talk) 12:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Encyclopedias should never be a source for a serious academic, paper or otherwise. At most an encyclopedia is a starting point for serious research. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC) reply
You are also less likely to get help when a post like "So, shall I understand that the aim of deleting the requested third party opinion is to protect the user Megistias, and his approach ?!?" is your first communication with another editor. The simple willingness to assume good faith on the part of other editors will get you farther in what is being miscalled a jungle. -- 204.194.251.5 ( talk) 19:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply
[4] Giano 19:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Same user returns,
now inserting bad grammar,
again and again.
Different IPs,
But all Opel Telecom,
As were those before.
LouScheffer ( talk) 19:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't know why Blenheim Palace was brought up on that talk page, but I headed over and found it interesting. I expressed an interest in it, now I face a chance that I'll be banned from it! See the thread on WP:AN#Proposed article ban and interaction ban of Tbsdy, which got closed off due to general confusion and chaos, but which will apparently be reopened in 24 hours. Go figure huh? As you were the one being baited, you might want to keep an eye out on WP:AN for the next few days, I have no doubt that either Equazcion or Unitanode will be making another attempt, and in the last attempt that was made Unitanode expressed a desire to make bans on the talk page, ostensibly because he says that AN/I is a drama fest. Which I don't believe for a second, as I believe that he wanted to have a maximum chance of teaching me a lesson.
Anyway, just thought you might like to know. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure where exactly the off-wiki spamming accusation is. I didn't read Tbsdy's lengthy explanation of events. I'm assuming the email exchange between myself and Unitanode are what's being referred to, and are under suspicion now. I'm answering here because I feel this is a side issue that will likely turn into a lengthy tangent if placed in the thread at AN.
My emails with Unitanode concerned
That's pretty much it. I'm not too thrilled at the suspicion that private emails were some sort of conspiracy attempt, or that an administrator took those rather unfounded and paranoid suspicions seriously. But there you have it. Equazcion (talk) 15:35, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I am really not sure what either of you are seeking. I suspect TB pointed out such behavior because it was a mirror of the behavior that he was being accused of. If you make it more clear what you want from me then perhaps I can help you, but I think it is clear that we have different opinions on this issue. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi there,
maybe you could answer my above question? What to do to when someone comes and deletes a request for third party opinion ?
Thanks in advance -- PtBg ( talk) 16:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
I am not suggesting that good faith can be achieved "when one of the parties constantly sabotages the discussion". I am saying that the third opinion service is only practical when both sides are assuming good faith. I also said you can go to WP:DRV where there is no requirement that you and the person you disagree with come to a compromise. You ask how you know if something is done by some random guy, just go to the talk page and you can see a button called "User contributions". Authority on Wikipedia comes from the community and it is the job of every Wikipedian to enforce the collective standards of our encyclopedia. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 01:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi!
I'm a fairly long term editor who has made (I hope) primarily constructive edits. I've been trying to maintain the Unobtainium page, but again an anonymous user has been making what I think are unhelpful edits. (You've semi-protected the page before to help with this). I've explained why I believe these are not helpful in the edit summary, asked for discussion on the talk page, and so on, but to no avail.
Now the anonymous user has taken a new tack, reverting my good faith edits on other pages. (See, for example, these contributions [5]. I am asking your advice - what is the best way to deal with this? Thanks, LouScheffer ( talk) 15:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi,
I have looked on the article Etiquette, but there is comming a crazy text:
"Brahma Kumaris are individuals of all ages and backgrounds who regularly attend classes at more than 8,500 centres of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University located in 110 countries.
It is a study spiritual knowledge that nurtures respect for all faith traditions, coherently ..."
This text is in the internet on the site:
www.bkwsu.org/
to find too.
I suppose, the problem is comming through the Expert-subject-multiple|date=September 2009 command, in the wikipedia article.
The same problem is to find on the articles:
- Information processing - Preservative - Personal armor
I am sorry that I can't repair the problem, possible you can fix it.
with friendly greetings from Germany, Sönke Rahn -- Soenke Rahn ( talk) 03:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply
"I see not ..." is a perfectly valid, albeit unusual, English construction. You are decidedly not a "fool" <g> as you seem to have feared. Collect ( talk) 16:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Priority fail
I merely wrote this haiku
Just to say hello
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 20:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Confusing Bruning
Always causes active thought
Part of the project.
-- Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 20:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Heh. "Use your damn brain!"
is haiku profanity
yet serves a purpose. ;-)
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 21:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't know who you are, but I'd appreciate you not editing my Talk Page. Apart from the presumption - I wouldn't dream of editing other users' Talk Pages - it's an extraordinary waste of energy, because even if I hadn't read the section you deleted (I had), the deletion would only have made me more interested in it.
Thanks. KD Tries Again ( talk) 22:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again reply
See? By the way, is it standard practice to remove all edits by a banned user? I can help out by reverting History of Logic to its state before he started editing it. KD Tries Again ( talk) 23:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Altering/removing my comment to make a point is not the same thing as removing edits by a banned editor, please don't do that. Historian of Logic was not "blocked", as an account, but was banned as a person when he made that post. It is nothing personal, I removed all his posts. I am sorry if I sounded patronizing, but I think my tone was subconsciously in response to the tone of your initial post here. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC) reply