This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
What the hell happened to the discussion page at Sportsbook.com??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.45.204 (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, Ricky, that image was uploaded for use in the page on 'conservipedia', it was taken off there page about 'world religions'. It gives an example of there, less then great, world outlook. They've since removed it, and I really couldent find a way to fit it in anyway. So. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micov (talk • contribs) 07:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you find me one such image available in fickr?. --Crazyguy2050 (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I just noticed it. Sigh. I'll probably respond to it in the morning. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ricky, may I ask why you unprotected this article? It's been under semi-protection for a long time for a reason... there's a very persistent vandal who has been targeting the article for years, and was targeting the article within the last 20 edits. ~Eliz81(C) 03:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Admin Ricky81682 (talk · contribs)--Svetovid (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much =]. Hope to see you around here, thanks for all the help.--AndyCook (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thanks for the tip. i posted on the Wikipedia talk:Non-free content page about a week or so ago... there was already an 'album cover' header... but when i returned to see if anything has yet changed, i found the page lacking the aforementioned section. how would i go about finding it, or finding relevant policy guidelines (i.e., if the policy has changed... it seemed like a VERY unpopular policy, perhaps these people have come to their senses and i can undo that schmuck's edits to the fleshcrawl page? get everything back to normal?).
thank you
AeturnalNarcosis (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You have CSDd this article erroneously I think. There is no claim to "fair use". Permission for usage is clearly stated in the Summary and the licensing link. Please remove the tag and be a little more attentive. --Triwbe (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thanks for fixing my page. but how did you know about me?I'mOnBase 17:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry you had to a trivial task for me though... But thanks a lot. I've learned my lesson about using offsite hosted scripts... Yamakiri TC § 04-14-2008 • 02:31:53
I don't understand what more I am supposed to do about that image. Also, has there been some kind of arbitration involving me? I never formally requested any. It looks like there might have been a decision or something made, but I don't understand all that. I thought I was just doing what is within my rights and obligations as a Wikipedia user. I didn't ever complain to anyone about A Sniper, even though he kept messaging me and basically harassing me with numerous messages making all kind of accusations from sock puppetry to single purpose account to trolling to vandalism. He had a very nasty attitude throughout all of this and I basically just began to ignore him. I thought that's what I was supposed to do. If you look at all my correspondence I never took on the nasty tone that he did. I assume you read the following discussion. I thought I stated my case very well in it.
Eric Greif 0. A Sniper (talk · contribs) 0. Eric Greif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 0. Death (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 0. Morbid Saint (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 0. Mötley Crüe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) A user, A Sniper, that has identified himself [34] [35] [36] [37] as a former manager and producer for the bands Death (band), Morbid Saint, Mötley Crüe is continually editing the related articles. I have left a If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. tag on the users talk page, but would appreciate other editors following up on this. dissolvetalk 21:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC) anyone can say anything about 'who they are' - that doesn't make it so. I have faithfully edited on a lot of pages (musical and religious), usually finding consensus on issues with the other usual editors. A Sniper (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Hello A Sniper. I don't perceive any bad effects from your editing, and the COI rules do allow you to participate on these articles, though with some caution. I'd still like you to say more about this edit, if you would. It seems possible that you are adding information to articles based on your own personal knowledge of events. Since you're an experienced WP editor, you're probably aware of our need for references. I'm concerned that you say, in the edit summary, that it would be 'vandalism' to remove the material. But we really don't have any reference for that information, do we? EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Hello EdJohnston. RE: the edit that you've referred to, the vandalism wasn't in the removing of the material but was in the replacing of the material with all-caps stating that a particular company was a bootlegger. I don't even know, frankly, if I was the editor who originally placed this material there, and that wasn't my reason for undoing the edit anyway. This edit you've pointed out was to undo what appeared to be personal anger by the editor against that record label. You'll also see that the same user added spanish-language notices against that record label, which I also removed. Just to make sure the edit was a good one, I checked with Google and saw a couple of references for this particular topic: [38][39][40][41]. Thanks, A Sniper (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC) It is a bit coincidental Dissolve that just after your COI notice, Single-purpose account Jackmantas was created and started slashing the Eric Greif article to bits. Is that operating under good faith? A Sniper (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC) I would imagine that the other editor is editing the article because it appears to be an autobiography [42] that lacks verifiable inline citations of reliable sources and as such, may not meet Wikipedias core policies of Neutral point of view and No original research. I hope you'll re-read Assume good faith, as accusing an editor of sock puppetry [43] with no evidence is not an act of good faith, please see Please do not bite the newcomers. dissolvetalk 15:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I left a note for Jackmantas inviting him to join this discussion. I see plenty of material for discussion in the points various people have made above, without the need to immediately jump into the review of people's behavior. Referencing for our articles on musical groups is not always very good. One option is to try to get a consensus to remove all the unsourced material. Temporarily, that will leave the articles impoverished, but if these people and groups are famous, somebody must have covered them. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Response by Jackmantas: Thank you Ed, for inviting me to this discussion. You are precisely correct in your statements. I am editing the article because it appears to be an autobiography. I see very little verifiable information on the page and I also see very little neutrality. Most, if not all of the links that the creator has provided as supposed references are interviews where the subject of the article is simply making claims about himself. In my mind this does not meet the minimum criteria of Wikipedia's core policies. Furthermore, I see a serious conflict of interest with this and other articles that Mr. Grief is mentioned in. It has already been revealed that Username: A Sniper and Eric Grief are actually the same person. He has admitted that himself. So, we have an individual who has created a page about himself and wrote basically everything on it and provided the images on it. (Autobiography) He has also inserted information about himself on other pages, (Motley Crue, London and Death for starters.) So it would seem we have a user who has placed unverified information on Wikipedia about himself in what would appear to be an effort to make himself appear more notable than he actually is. So we go back to the issue of whether this article is about a noteworthy enough person to justify having a Wikipedia Page. On top of all this, he is a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. So it would appear that in his accusations of vandalism and sock puppetry toward me he was abusing his trusted position as a member of Wikipedia volunteer staff to further his own agenda. I feel like I am doing the best job I can to do my part as a newcomer that wants to help out and is feeling good about doing just that. Might I add that I have always admired and marveled at Wikipedia. The amount of information contained is absolutely staggering. I had always heard that anyone could contribute to Wikipedia and while that is totally cool and innovative, at the same time it creates an environment in which widespread abuse could potentially run rampant if left unchecked. It feels good to be able to help out, and I look forward to learning all I can about how I can be of service to the Wikipedia community in the future. That is all I have to say for now. Thank you again for the opportunity to join this discussion. Jackmantas (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as the Sock puppetry goes, If you check the history of the sites that he is mentioned in, you will see that there are user accounts that were created and they only performed maybe 3 or 4 actions which involved adding information about A sniper or removing flagging from the Eric Grief site etc.
As far as me moving to the Death site to do edits there, I came upon the problems with that and other articles that link out of Eric Grief, which is a perfectly natural progression to me. I'm sure I will focus on many other sites that have nothing to do with A sniper in the future, I was just trying to clean up the problems that I saw, and there were a lot of them. If he decides to take it personally, isn't that his problem? BTW I originally stumbled onto the Eric Grief article through a natural progression of links starting at You tube. It basically became very apparent to me what was going on and I decided to step up to the plate and do some editing this time. ( I had seen problems with other Wikipedia entrys before and done nothing about them.) Sure, yes I just tried to delete the whole page at first, but that is before I knew the value of responsible editing. ( just like is described in your instructional posts that talk about "not biting the newcomers" and such.) Mr Grief chose to focus on what I did in the very beginning in an effort to make me look bad and totally ignored the many constructive edits that I have done since then.
That is all for now, Thanks for your time.
Jackmantas (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, this article is about a deceased person and is hence not a biography of a living person. I am also not the creator of the article and only one of several regular contributors. Thanks, A Sniper (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Your re-build of the article looks good. Please note that some of the online references have Greif misspelled as Grief or use the producer's former nickname of 'Eric "Griffy" Greif' (or misspelled as 'Eric "Griffy" Grief'). A Sniper (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Happy to be of assistance. Yeah, 1300 images is more than I had expected in that section. I think we need to add some gigantic, multicolor, possibly flashing warnings to the upload screen that if they don't select a licensing template their image will be deleted, or something. Anyway, good luck dealing with all of those; there's a reason I don't hang around in the image-related areas of Wikipedia overly much. If you ever want me to run the program again leave me a note; I think I've learned enough from actually running it once to work out all the kinks for any future runs.--Dycedarg ж 07:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As you're aware of the above user, please note that the tit-for-tat editing has now descended to personal attacks. Please see user's contributions, some specific malicious diatribes found at [1]. I reverted some of the overt violations of WP:Etiquette, including a constant barrage at my talk page (which I've now archived). I'm trying to avoid any engagement now. If you do find evidence of trolling or abuse, I would appreciate if you could let this new user know that talk pages, especially for articles, are not meant to be a soapbox for innuendo, personal attacks and abuse. Thanks, A Sniper (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm trying to sort through the complex disputes involving the Hungarian and Slovakian editors. I see that you've dealt with them a bit. Would you like to help out at User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment? It's a centralized discussion point that I've set up, to try and get a handle on the situation. I'd appreciate a couple more uninvolved admins helping out, if you have time. :) --Elonka 12:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
MiszaBot III, only passes through once a day. So the 1 hour parameter really only means 24 hours. It is really a sorry state that so many editors complain about nothing. And yep, I do read the messages but only choose to respond if I do something wrong. Otherwise it is don't bother me with your pettiness. --pete 00:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
their --pete 01:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by actual dispute? --pete 01:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)?
Okay, Ricky81682. Here's my complete image list. I would like to point out that there are some images listed there that I'm okay with having deleted, and some that I'd rather wait until the articles they were intended for come back(if they come back), before I request that they're saved. ----DanTD (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This article, which you have edited, has been nominated for AfD. Feel free to weigh in with your comments. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Category-Class PlayStation articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Category-Class PlayStation articles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Category-Class PlayStation articles, please affix the template ((hangon)) to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was trying to create the Gibraltar First Division Football Template modeling the one in Faroe Islands and after creating it I saved it; however i thought that i accidentally put the fb:start fb:end stuff on the Gibraltar Club page, so i deleted it. Later when i checked i realized that i undid the wrong thing, User: Boguslavmandzyuk already undid my edit. I did not delete in intentionally; when i deleted it, i just thought it was on the Gibraltar United Club page and that i accidentally added it on when adding the template, thus deleted it. My mistake. I didn't even realize it, since i went on after that. But thanks for asking and bringing it to my attention. --Shustfan (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I see you've readded the importance rating to the template recently. Fact is, until about two months back, when the template was converted to pp-template (that's what the edit history says), the template did not have an importance rating and hence now there are thousands of talk pages that have this template with the parameter empty. In any case, having an Importance rating for a genre-wide project like WP:album is incorrect because it is nigh impossible to rate one album (say of Hip-hop) higher than another (say of the blues). Importance ratings only carry meaning within a specific genre. Please change it back, thanks indopug (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Mind weighing in here? You can look at a diff to see what Relata refero wants to remove. In particular, I don't understand his insistence on removing the Samurai Comparison. I went through a lot of trouble to find citations from Google Books that make the same comparison. Finally, there is the issue of Nair marriage. While I agree with him that the material is uncited, the description of the ritual is common knowledge and is described exactly as it happens. He claims Wikipedia is not a collection for ritual, but the information is not presented as such. I believe it is perfectly enclopedic material from a anthropological perspective. The same goes for the stratification of Nairs described in the Travancore State Manual. Although not prevalent today, it does provide an idea of Nair stratification from a historical perspective. He claims that the 1905 reference is simply "too old". Nothing new has been written on the subject to my knowledge (this, coming from Google [Book] searches). At any rate, your attention would be appreciated. Thanks! --vi5in[talk] 22:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the ref tag in this article. If you check back, you will see these references fell within a verbatim quote. As a rule, I use an ellipsis if removing irrelevant text from quotes. If a quote contains a footnote worth citing, I quote this separately, citing "p. 73, n3.", for example.
I expect you overlooked the quotation marks. I haven't reverted, 'cause I thought you'd probably agree and not mind doing it yourself.
A slightly more time consuming alternative would be to add another note after the ref for the quote. Something like <ref>Buss cites himself and Cite1 and Cite2 in support of ...</ref>.
Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I received a notice of deletion for several images. I have made the proper changes. I hope they are suitable. Libro0 (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The following is all I can find about the deletion of the Bridget Moynahan image that I think is the one I uploaded.
"05:46, 29 February 2008 Ricky81682 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Bridget moynahan int.jpg" (CSD I1: Redundant to another image: Commons commons:Image:Bridget Moynahan.jpg)"
But that other image, said to be in Commons, is not there. What is the story?? --Dumarest (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
But that link also goes to an image that is not present. --Dumarest (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this, I hadn't noticed that it was still in that class, even though it's been rated B class. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
And once again, thanks for doing this. Say, would you be interested in joining the project? :D You would be most welcome :) Sorry, but we don't have any fancy invite template, just text. :( Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, thanks anyway, and keep up the good work :D Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Not that I don't agree with this PROD, but you'd be better off taking it to AfD. I already tried PROD once with no success. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
In regards to your edit on my talk page, the ANI discussion has been removed, so I responded on my talk page. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
this guy User:Fadeintoyou still isn't listening and seems hell bent on whatever his agenda is. How about a block? I'm finished trying to reason with him until he calms down. Thanks. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
lol this guy is hell bent on being a pain in the ass. I love his not-so-subtle ripoff of your username. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
According to the sources this is a fact, not a rumor. Of course no academic books deal with that, so I don't understand your point. Even if you don't trust the largest news portals in Hungary, you may trust this reference. English sources don't really follow her anyway since she's not playing so much (in February she retired if I remember well). Squash Racket (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[2] You can just block them from sending you emails next time. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello: I'm assuming that you saw my dispute with Cbsite about this article detailed (badly) on the Administrators' noticeboard, which led you to revise that article but keep it as a disambig page. You said in your edit comments that disambig "made the most sense", but did not respond on the Talk page to any of the discussion I and another user had posted there about why it should be a redirect, including a link to WP:Hatnotes#Two articles with the same title which says very clearly that for two articles with the same title, a redirect instead of a separate disambig page should be used. Since the entire "edit war" stemmed from Cbsite's refusal to acknowledge that guideline or explain why it shouldn't apply, your assertion that doing it otherwise "makes more sense" is not any more persuasive to me than Cbsite's persistent reverts without comment. Propaniac (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Just worked out the change re Bobby G. No help required. I am currently re-writing the page into a proper Biographical account of the subject. I've seen the reversion you put up - I can do better than that, so I'll carry on with the edit and include references and citations.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
So, why was the Hassenfeld image removed after so many years? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshanks (talk • contribs)
Thanks, I am aware of that and I am in the middle of typing my response. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
your seem kind —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshanks (talk • contribs) 08:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There is some strange complaint about you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mrshaba. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ricky, thanks for taking interest in the issue, even if you would probably never be bothered with the singer in question, the Eurovision Song Contest or the trivialities being discussed. That said, I would be most obliged if you could keep the page on your watchlist, as User:Eurovisionman will probably try to revert your, and others' edits, even violating 3RR. Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It is a competition and this is a review of her performance by an experienced commentator. Isgreatestman (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Glad it's sorted. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Check out my new comment at the bottom of the talk page. Do you think it's time to start restoring the section now with this new source? It seems reliable enough to me. Bash Kash (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I have very rarely ventured into SSP/CU requests, so I may well be incorrect, but my review of the two accounts Eurovisionman (talk · contribs) and Isgreatestman (talk · contribs) indicated that the latter has an earlier edit history (1 edit in 2007) than the former (all May 2008). I am aware that it can be determined when accounts were created, but I thought that it is the first editing account that is generally regarded as the master account. Not a biggie, and perhaps some little learning for me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi! You unprotected the above article. Could you please revert the crap that has been put into it since then and reprotect it? The vandal seems to be of the insanely persistent kind:-(. It would be helpfull if you could put the article on you watchlist, I am usually not online that often, it was only coincidence that I saw what happened. Best regards! --Lamme Goedzak (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Is there maybe a list of frequentely vandalized pages one could put this page on?--Lamme Goedzak (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ricky81682, thank you for your comments and advice concerning REX GILDO. May I EXPLAIN to you as follows:
1. Myself and my family attended REX GILDO concerts and the overwhelming adulation was from screaming young GIRL fans of Rex Gildo. These girls were passionate fans of Rex Gildo's Romantic Ballads and his macho idol persona. The scenes I described were FACTS as witnessed by myself and others.
2. REX GILDO has never publicly or on the record ever stated anything about "gay" or "sodomy" but was a happily married man from 1974 to 1990.
3. LURID sexual innuendos are NOT correct, true or appropriate in this great artists page. Rex Gildo's music and films should dominate the page and his enormous attraction to millions of girls.
4. I have tried to CORRECT the "crap sexual vandalism" of people like Lamme Goedzak who seek to make lurid sexual points out of a family man, a happily married man REX GILDO who sold millions of records.
I hope you can help to put the record straight and make sure the REX GILDO Wiki page reflects the facts and the man as he was. A Multi Million Romantic Balladeer who captured the hearts of millions of girls/fans.
Thank you very much Ricky. From KaiserEuro1 1 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaiserEuro1 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! --213.40.96.218 (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you should have taken a course of action against another editor who has deleted the introduction to the article and re-wrote it himself in a POV style. I am not happy about this, great first impression. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi: Cbsite's reverting The Color of Friendship again and cursing directly at me in the edit summary. I've already posted the issue at ANI, but just wanted to give you a heads-up since I do refer to your actions in the report. Propaniac (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Fixed;) Cam (Chat) 06:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea why you've nominated those images for deletion. The author was listed. Your canned message doesn't apply. I've removed the tags. Please talk to User:Anthere for more information on these images. Anthony (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cover.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cover.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
There must of been a mix up uploading A46wooley.jpg since that that is actually the M4. anyway to Rename it? Blackwave...... (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but I am guessing it was a fellow blocked a month or so ago for using a dynamic IP to dodge his edit history, full of warnings for incivility. Similar IP's popped up repeatedly in the Fitna (film) a few months ago, and the anon also filed an AN/I about me. TT's two preceding (and failed) ANI complaints about me pretty much indicate the guy isn't going to leave me alone, and takes a lot of offense if I don't give him the attention he appears to need. Just for a heads-up, the responding ANI's noted that while I wasn't diplomatic of folk (something I've taken pains to address since), TT was guilty of a "thin skin and a big mouth" (or words very much to that effect).
I have the most devoted fan club. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I posted a comment at your Charles Thomas Bolton DYK suggestion. Please visit Articles created/expanded on July 6 and provide a reply if so desired. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
--BorgQueen (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any of the editors wrote it properly. Me, I look at old books about different studios to make my estimations. I deeply also respect your request to have a need to add reliable references. So far, I have found not too many sources with lists that do not match each other. That is why I cannot add one particular resource, because many differ.Kevin j (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I am User:House1090...I am not 9 or 10 and I do not want to make any more sock's thats why I asked User:CambridgeBayWeather and now you to give me another chance is in that a sign of maturity, please give me one more chance (you commented about me on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:House1090 yesterday), I just want to edit again I am sorry for any trouble I may have caused I will not make no more sock puppets, please give me 1 more chance - User:House1090 71.110.203.151 (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to remove it. I was trying to add facts, and I guess I must have accidently erased it in the process. I never intended to do so.Kevin j (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
That's the reason for my edit to the book reference on the Harry Warner page. Because it wasn't there, the mention of it on the reference list was written improperly. Kevin j (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I've responed to your request here. Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo#Specific_language
Thanks Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't remember everyone being told to stay away from each other. What's that all about? ('ve chipped into that natter about me that's taking place on some other page. Thanks for telling me. Kirker (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC))
Hi, Ricky.
This is for your information.
Here, user Kirker speaks about certain user Ricky81632 [4] (message from 14:33, 18 August 2008):
"But don’t advise me how to behave or you start to sound like that condescending guy Ricky81632 who’s been spewing rubbish recently. (Where did he crawl out from, by the way? He’s contributed sod all to any article I’ve ever seen".
This remark "And that’s where Ricky81632 “highly suggested”..." definitely shows that he's speaking about you (two days after your message to him [5] 07:34, 14 August 2008 and on WP:ANI [6]). He speaks about you and me (since you've engaged regarding that WP:ANI). Obviously.
However, he "played nice" towards you on WP:ANI, but 2 days later he used such words.
You know the saying: "Wolf changes its hair; his temper - never".
In total, this Kirker's message from above is not the editing in the good spirit. He's showing no sign of improving. Kubura (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I have an idea about the baseball card images. Since all of the images violate copyright, I thought it would be better to simply remove the excess and utilize an external link to an established image gallery. This would seem to be the best solution. We can avoid documentation problems and the reader will be able to view a multitude of cards instead of just a few. There are several good external links of galleries. This allows for the best application of policy in my opinion. Libro0 (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I ONLY WRITE IN CAPS TO HIGHLIGHT MY IMPORTANT STATEMENTS. It's not a matter of rage, BUT MORE OF A MATTER OF USING IT AS A WAY OF HIGHLIGHTING. To me, IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN USING A HIGHLIGHTER. Also, when I tell people that "if You're an Obama supporter, I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself and respect the neutral point of view policy, I AM ONLY TRYING TO ENFORCE THE POLICY IN THE FIRST PLACE. I ONLY SAy "IF YOU ARE," NOT "YOU ARE."Kevin j (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I DID NOT. When Plushpuffin whines about me being guilty for something I'm not, it does agitate me. I want this user to stop this and understand that his opinion is not always the right one.Kevin j (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Tvoz, I'm afraid you're mistaken. THE CAPITOL HILL BLUE IS NOT UNREALIABLE IN ANYWAY. KEEP YOUR OPINIONS TO YOURSELF AND RESPECT THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW POLICY. You've already confessed you're a "Nancy Reagan Warrior" on your userpage, AND WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR POLITICAL PROPAGANDA. I also really don't care about your barnstars, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES FOR ANYBODY ON WIKIPEDIA. Just so you also know, I'm also now using Italics to highlight may main points and I know that nothing I have done is wrong of in violation of the BLP policy. The Capital Hill Blue's motto about the mainstream media is also only an advertisement that's no different than CNN's "most trusted name in news" or Fox News' "Fair and Balanced."Kevin j (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Good grief, "Nancy Reagan warrior"? It's called irony, friend. Tvoz/talk 02:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
My user page was locked. After receiving notice that it was locked I deleted what I thought were the objectionable sections. It was again locked. How does this sound as an acceptable user page: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs)
Note: removed in case of potential issue. See this version. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Enrique dela Costa, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enrique dela Costa. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
He has recieved my warning 14 minutes before your warning :)--Rjecina (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Ricky, my comment to Rjecina that you have criticised at AN/I was entirely appropriate. It was, indeed carefully thought out and well judged. Your move. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I have asked checkuser for Brzica milos Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Brzica milos etc.
My actions in article Ljubo Miloš (you have commented my action in this article) are very simple. On 20:11, 3 September 2008 we are having user Brzica milos etc edit (in reality revert). 2 days latter we are having user Brzica milos etc which is together with user 71.252.106.166 starting edit warring in this article. I am sure that there is no need for my further writings about this user ??
In my thinking only problem in this article is end of this summer IP ban which has blocked this user.
Because of my "interesting" vandal revert policy I am always in contact with administrators and until now I am OK. You can read part of older similar discussion on top of my talk page.--Rjecina (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It will have to wait until morning--Tznkai (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Ricky, thanks for your prompt reaction.
My comment wasn't pointed towards you (neither against you), but to other admins.
I've written "Has any other admin read WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK"?
I thought: you've tried to remain uninvolved, to avoid any overreaction, to remove your personal feelings when you brought the decision about blocking of Kirker.
Point of my message was: no good deed goes unpunished. You gave Kirker (IMHO) a too mild punishment, and he, instead being thankful to you, because you gave him chance, he describes your work here as "crass administering", and even more on WP/ANI "Time for User:Ricky81682 to go? ".
Point is: has any other admin seen what's going on? Why they haven't encouraged you to punish the insulter even more?
Problem was with others, not with you. Greetings, Kubura (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, sorry, I withdraw the accusation about "time for ... to go". After comparing dozens of diffs, and seeing bunch of etiquetting like "snide arsehole", "pathetic", "spineless", "crass", I wasn't concentraded as at the beginning. Kubura (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
If you are interested in our Balkan problems I can give you data for discovering puppets. Only problem is that this data will come in email, because there is no point in writing on talk page when 1 of maybe more banned users (I am 100 % sure about Pax) are reading all my edits. This informations will be only for your use !--Rjecina (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Rjecina recently tried to block J.A. Comment, user who he is stalking for many months, bragging "Now I will block J.A. Comment" [7], like he is an admin here. Another admin, Manogojuice, also considered blocking Rjecina for his disruptive behavior. Rjecina never asumes good faith, deletes other people comments from talk pages [8], and does numerous other violations, including incivility in edit summaries, and the only reason he is getting away with it is that noone really bothers to complain about his behaviour. It is high time that someone dealt with this disruptive editor for abusing the admin machinery to get his POV, edit warring, stalking, incivility, ignoring warnings, never assuming good faith, in short, disrupting wikipedia and annoying quite a few wikipedians. He persistantly tries to game the admin system for his own POV agenda, and is the real problem here. 213.198.217.106 (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ricky,
I apologize for raising this issue again (its actually more of a supplement) but I remember that you asked for a summary. The last time, the second sock puppetry accusation against me distracted away from the main issue and I was also drawn into defend other false comments and address points that were overlooked by others. So it got messy.
I put a detailed summary on the ANI page again (and details of the sock puppetry accusations on my talk page for documentary defense against future such accusations). I am sorry that it is long but a lot was done and the summary addresses most of it, step by step. I tried to refer to (and assess) all relevant information as succinctly as possible. I have done this in case I am again accused in future and will refer to these addictions in my defense.
Essentially, I was falsely accused of being a sock & was subjected to several levels of abuse along the way. Then, after I was cleared, no regard was given to my being exonerated. I am still the subject of slanderous insinuations and my accuser continued to canvass others to promote the idea of me being a sock and petition for my expulsion. I have been called fascist and a racist, though my contributions clearly are not. The claim that I travel the world to places I have never been to do all this is simply preposterous. Those who see Noclodor as having done nothing wrong have admitted they did not read much of my evidence and, I guess, think this kind of abuse is ok. False/inaccurate information was and continued to be presented in an effort to link me to other users who they deem to be socks. Along the way I have tried to highlight the issue of abuse and slander, which has resulted in the ANI etc.
I later found that this has all originated from my attempt to constructively convert one POV passage on Italian military by another user into a relevant NPOV passage. It appears that no one ever botherered to read the text that I included or check out my citations. Ironically, I did not contribute much to the topic and it comprises only a portion of the variety of contributions I have so far been able to make.
I have noticed that you have pulled at least one of accuser’s colleagues up (i.e. one that thinks Noclador did nothing wrong) for abusing another editor elsewhere; in association with user:Rjecina (I do not follow his/her posts). So it appears that my case of abuse is not isolated (although my posts have almost zero relation to the topics I was dragged in & accused over). In his defense, this other user otherwise seemed respectful towards me (so I won’t name him here).
I feel that people who conduct such investigations with the level of competency and abuse I have highlighted should NOT be allowed to do so. I feel that strongly about it that I am considering contacting senior foundation members external to the Wikipedia forum. The issue is not about me but rather about the of abuse and lack of respect by “investigators”.
Sincerely Romaioi (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I please ask you why user:71.252.106.166 is not banned ? Checkuser is clear about him ?
There is small problem with Slobodan Kljakic statement about book ("described the book as A major piece,...") In references it is writen that source of this statement is published by "Ministry of Information of the Republic of Serbia in 1991" ????? I am sure that you know how respected is any source when it is published by Ministry of Information during war of nations. First rule of propaganda is to show other side like monsters.
I have not answered on Magnum Crimen talk page because I do not speak with banned user puppets (user:71.252.106.166).--Rjecina (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
As I can see here I'm not the only one here that had problem with Rjecina
"Rjecina problem
Rjecina recently tried to block J.A. Comment, user who he is stalking for many months, bragging "Now I will block J.A. Comment" [7], like he is an admin here. Another admin, Manogojuice, also considered blocking Rjecina for his disruptive behavior. Rjecina never asumes good faith, deletes other people comments from talk pages [8], and does numerous other violations, including incivility in edit summaries, and the only reason he is getting away with it is that noone really bothers to complain about his behaviour. It is high time that someone dealt with this disruptive editor for abusing the admin machinery to get his POV, edit warring, stalking, incivility, ignoring warnings, never assuming good faith, in short, disrupting wikipedia and annoying quite a few wikipedians. He persistantly tries to game the admin system for his own POV agenda, and is the real problem here. 213.198.217.106 (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)"
Reason for my edits and reverts on Ivo Andric page are that the article is full of wrong "facts" and that Croatian University is used as a reference, which is completely illogical because it can't get more biased than that. The hard fact is that Ivo Andric was a Bosnian of Serb ethnicity, he himself confirmed that many times during his life; And still wiki article states that he is a Croat and uses Croatian University as reference.Pure Croatian propaganda.And if you look at that article change history you'll see that I'm not the only one that disapproves it. Also, Rjecina is deleting references that point out that Ivo Andric was a Serb. That is all.
Thanks for fixing the image problem, but I still can't see that this is notable. Would you like to comment at the talk page? Richard Pinch (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I have reported him, now its up to the judges.Mike Babic (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Because of warnings it will be wise to inform you about my new demand for user:Thatcher (User:147.91.1.45 and User:147.91.1.41). Situation is clear (see block log) but let us give him new job.--Rjecina (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I urgently require some help from you. Actually, a user uploaded an Image Image:MangaloreanCatholicsRules.gif on the Mangalorean Catholics article, and released it under the Public domain. But however, when I checked the Individual articles on them, no free Images were present. I checked the entire Wikimedia Commons but those images were not found. That means these are copyrighted images copied from other websites, and then merged into a bigger Image. Is it allowed as per WIKIpolicies. I have contacted you since you are an administrator. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
A cursory glance through your talk page, and I see that you previously were involved in the editing conflicts surrounding Hungary/Slovakia. Why you would willingly allow yourself to be drawn into another cultural edit war is beyond me, but here we are. I'm contacting you because I can see you're talk page is getting spammed by people on both sides of this conflict in an attempt to gain some kind of administrative edge on the other. This needs to stop before you run screaming from the building, though I also think we need a neutral administrator (actually several) to keep an eye on things. My question, is how do you think we can keep the talk page on various articles from turning into a poisonous environment where editors just give up like you did at Magnum Crimen? I've thought about formal mediation, but how can someone mediate a conflict like this? How can a mediator be effective when there are clearly sockpuppets who do not want to play by the rules, and people willing to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of sockpuppeting? I went to WP:ECCN thinking in theory that would be the best place to get some help. Turns out, it's just a low traffic noticeboard that the WP:WORKINGGROUP created and abandoned, and the only response I got there was an assertion that this simply an editorial "style" conflict from another disputant. Am I being impatient? I certainly know that we're not going to solve any of the region's problems on article talk pages, but I've frankly had enough of this poisonous environment. I guess I'm asking if you think it's time to bring in some formal process to make working on these articles bearable, and if you do what process do you think would be most effective? AniMate 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
We are having dispute in this article. Sentence which you have deleted is from Haverford College text which you support. This sentence is put in article with copy/paste and it is not possible to delete this with statement "better to use the language the sources do rather than describe them as "nationalists"" ??--Rjecina (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ricky, sorry to drag you further into this, but I am getting the feeling that I may be being led down the garden path by User:Rjecina. Could you look at my recent blocks of 147.91.1.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 147.91.1.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), just as a sanity check if you have time. Cheers Kevin (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Please add a space in the name of syndrome. I do not know how to do it.
I geting filings that is something fundamentaly wrong with exposing last names of medical cases. You doing this. Dont you think so ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.198.94 (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
We are having new SPA POV pushing account. I have reverted his edits and it is possible read why. Today I am having only small wiki vaccation break which will continue next 9 days.--Rjecina (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. Hopefully they got what they were looking for, though I still think that professor should create some more effective teaching methods... Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 03:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Again!. I know it's getting way old. Thanks for hanging in here, mate. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, and more importantly for jumping into the talk page discussion. It's getting old and stale. I arrived at the page initially a few months ago from another ANI thread, so I don't really care one way or the other on what the content of the page is, just as long as it follows MOS and there is a consensus among the editors to do so. When I first came across the page, the current version (or close to it) was the consensus among several editors, except Chanakya. Now it's down to two editors.
Personally, I believe Chankya's edits should be added, but not the way he's going about it. I made some proposals fairly recently and I thought I had made some progress by trying to initiate the discussion again, but that obviously failed.
Anyway, enough with the background -- you might have already learned all of this already out by reading the old discussions. Once again, thanks for jumping in. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your latest edit on the Arjun article cited the need for more sources. I have added more sources accordingly for the sections that I have edited. As for more specific claims about Arjun's mobility, firepower, FCS, and other systems, I was not the original editor for those sections, and I could not locate sources for the claims contained therein. I hope other editors may contribute instead. By78 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
if you trouble translating from croatia to english use this website http://translate.google.com/translate_t# . I'm giving you this website you seem to be doubtful on the merit that a new editor contributes. I'm here to say that you can use this website to check every single one of the sources. However, what troubles me more is the fact that DIREKTOR removed 10 names off the article Serbs of Croatia And I was the only person that actually cared enough to undo his "mistake". this is funny since there's like four or five editors who edit this article. it's also funny that these violations (or mistakes, im not judging) seemed to slip by editor. this is especially true when there is anything "positive" toward Serbs. Then removal seems normal and goes unnoticed. Lastly, there's no need to attack new editors. Especially, when they source their claims AND are willing to discuss any discrepancies on the discussion page. thanks for your timeMike Babic (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I remember you (at the time I believed only semi-seriously) proposing that solution at ANI, and now - as then - I have to admit that it has a strange appeal ;) Although the edit-warring has stopped, which was my initial purpose in protecting the page, it looks like you're still banging your head against a brick wall on the talk page. I certainly don't have a problem with you taking things to the next level; you've apparently made no actual content contributions, so I don't think you could be regarded as too involved. Actually, I'm in a similar position on Chanelle Hayes, where I recently blocked an editor for continually removing sourced content he didn't like. I'd been keeping an eye on the article for a while, following up an ANI report, and although it wasn't my reason for being there, I've also removed half-dozen inappropriate links and wikified things a little. I can't help doing that - it may be pathological :P - but I don't see it as 'involvement'. Becoming involved would, in my view, mean doing something that gives one a personal stake in an article, such as adding content or advocating a POV.
Incidentally, if you want an extra pair of eyes on the article and talk page, I'm more than happy to oblige; I pretty much volunteered when I reponded to the ANI thread anyway ;) All the best, EyeSerenetalk 13:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree, enough is enough. I've blocked for 24 hours (review welcome!) EyeSerenetalk 10:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I took action to remove some clear POV pushing by Chanakyathegreat for the Arjun article. I have opened a new section in the discussions to document what he has done. It is getting ridiculous. May I suggest we go back to the previous, and still standing, agreement that Chanakya submit his changes for peer review before incorporating them into the actual article. I seriously do not have the time to fix his mess. By78 (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ricky, I see that many responsible ones here also seem to have turned a blind eye to admin Dougweller's recent misgivings. Apparently, someone else also ran into his disruptive editing. He really needs to work on NPOV. He continues to dabble in with his own POV on the Henotheism page after the recent Adityas debacle. Let me remind here that “civility” is best understood as rational commentary. So he should really go debate on the Talk:Henotheism instead of engaging in edit reversals pushing his own POV, without paying attention to references added by others (in this case ADvaitaFan) for verifiability. Why not talk to him about “civility” and "wikiquette"? It should also be noted that “rational debate” does not just mean usage of a good tone, but also willingness to compromise and adapt to the positions of other editors: simply repeating his original position ad nauseam through rvs in the face of questionable verifiability of rvs – is not civil, but merely tendentious. Be well. VedicScience (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
My comments in article Serbs of Croatia has been needed because Wikipedia original research policy. Source is saying that he is born in Slavonia and when I say that this is Croatia it is original research ? It is possible to write my comments with "better" words, but I have tried to test your double standards and test has been OK (from my point)
For me it is interesting how you are always seeing my "incivility" but you are refusing to act when I am under attacked with incivility. During last 6 days new account has called my (and 1 other users) edits vandalism 4 times [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , but this new account with knowledge how wikipedia work is nice guy for which wikipedia civility rules are not importanty but for my SPA account we are having different story.
Reason for my thinking about your double standards is thinking that you are checking all my edits and because of that you are knowing about all this attacks --Rjecina (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see someone remembered that there are ideas out there for a solution to this editing quagmire. Honestly, I'm at the point where I wouldn't mind seeing an extension of the protection and some enforced mediation. Probably won't happen, but something needs to give. AniMate 21:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you deny that the trials be it in winter or summer is part of AUCRT?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Why are you getting confused. When I say, Ashwamedh exercise it happened in 2007. I added the link of Ashwamedh exercise into the AUCRT section by mistake but there specifically mention it as Ashwamedh. This happened because you have asked for links for all and I searched and put it in AUCRT section. But I had added the same in Ashwamedh exercise section also. What you call mixup is not really a mixup. When asked to prove something that is present in other section, I had to provide source to the same. But one thing is very clear that be it in any section I clearly mention it as Ashwamedh, AUCRT trial, etc. I had never misrepresented any facts. What I find is that you guys are only good at accusing me. I am not saying it for fun. Just go and check the Arjun MBT page. Check the edit by By78 and the links he provided. Now you are coming and accusing me.
Just check this, I will give you a sample. Let's start with the Summer 2006 trial section. The By78 edit says "It was remarked by Major General H.M. Singh in 2007 that the Firing Trials of 2006 demonstrated "the accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt."". It's true that the H.M Singh did comment. But he was quoting from the Army report that was submitted by the Indian Army. Want proof just check the same link[13] which says. "Major General H.M. Singh, Additional Director in charge of trial and evaluation, said last year's user field trial report had certified that the accuracy and consistency of the weapon system was proved beyond doubt." Who is this user and which is this field trial report. The user is the Indian Army and the report is by the Indian Army. Now why is such anomalies in the edits. Is this done by me or someone else. Now why are you accusing me for that. Now check the second link which is more accurate. It says "In fact, the army has already accepted the Arjun for introduction into service, based upon its driving and firing performance over the years. After firing trials in summer 2006, the trial report (written by the army) said: "The accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt." Now who is doing things that are against wiki rules. I will post more later. Time restrictions. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Ricky, I think it's better to go section by section to solve the whole problem. I had replied in the Summer 2006. You can check it and express your opinion. By78 post in the Summer 2006 section and also with logic for your disagreement and put within quotes what the sources have to say.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi... caliroan here. The www.tompapaniafraud.com link is *not broken* Thanks for at least leaving up that "sources challenge Papania's testimony." Many of the footnotes that support Papania's false claims merely link back to his own web site. That's like footnoting a post that says 2+2=5 back to a web site that confirms 2+2=5. Hopefuly people who are researching Papania as he markets himself as an evangelist will look beyond Wikipedia - there is so much material on the web that supports the conclusion the guy is not what he pretends to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.151.2.10 (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
My feeling is that you're right, and in any case we should err on the side of caution. I'm no copyright expert, but I know that we can't include song lyrics even in articles about the song itself (eg Run to You (song)) for copyright reasons. I understand it's slightly different when the lyrics are needed for (sourced) analysis, but even then only the relevant portion should be used, not the song in its entirety. EyeSerenetalk 09:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Along with the working group, the Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard was created in part to siphon off the endless threads that often clogged WP:AN and WP:AN/I with complex nationalist, ethnic, and cultural issues that couldn't be solved with simple administrative actions. Unfortunately, no one from the working group has checked in over there for months, and the majority of posts that are made languish without any replies from uninvolved editors. The board is so dead that no one has bothered setting up a bot to archive as it would be pointless. I know that the community sanction noticeboard was marked historical after a MfD debate, but that was because many felt it was actively harming the project and editors. This board isn't necessarily hurting anyone or harming the project, but it is useless. I've been considering nominating it for deletion, but haven't been feeling quite bold enough to do so without some input. I left a note on the noticeboard's talk page, and shockingly no one responded. So, I brought this here after drafting a deletion rationale and then chickening out. What do you think? Should I nominate it or should I ignore the essentially useless link to it on top of all the noticeboards where people actually respond? AniMate 01:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, and for removing the full protection. The reason that I think indefinite semi-protection is appropriate is that this article — like several others about Jewish critics of Israel — has been subject to constant defamatory attacks, in breach of WP:BLP, from vandals using anonymous IPs, or by single-purpose accounts. Most of these seem to use anonymisers and proxy servers to cover their tracks. It is clearly targetted for vandalism, and should be protected. Indefinite semi-protection will not affect genuine editors, but should prevent nost, if not all, of this vandalism. RolandR (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
BD has to completely be deleted. Its title was changed in the past because it was hiding the fact that it using DEFAULTSORT. I requested an extend to the tasks of my bot so I can remove BD from the 20,000 articles are using it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Today article Charlemagne has recieved indefinite protection. In my thinking this solution can be used for Croatia related articles which are every few months protected because of newly created SPA accounts. Can you tell me your thinking about this ?--Rjecina (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
On my user talk page, you said something about editing. All I was doing was welcoming them, not vandleisng their talk pages. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Have I done something wrong? What did I do wrong- "This ain't right."? Please fill me out on that. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your civil suggestion, can you feedback later if you think it reads more formally now? Alientraveller (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, it's kinda weird being quoted and being used as justification. :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
What is the (()) key to show that an artilce needs to be rewriten?--Marshall T. Williams (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have just discovered that you requested a link to Shukla discussion in one of the Arjun discussion sections. Sorry I did not see it until now, you know how much back and forth has been going on there that it is hard to track. Anyhow, here is the link you requested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arjun_MBT/Archive_1#Arjun_Dead). —Preceding unsigned comment added by By78 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Help! My Twinkle gadget isn't showing up all the time! What do I do? --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Ricky81682, for the information (which is new to me). I'll bear it in mind. Of course, Mitsube must follow the same rule too! Suddha (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again, Ricky81682, for letting me know about the discussion relating to Amnam Gumnam and Mitsube (and myself, Suddha). I've added some comments of my own on that page. Suddha (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion. At what point do we stop all these "new" users who rotate from one topic to another? I've seen the same group of users, each one in the same order, appearing on topic after topic to (1) edit war (2) get the article protected (3) shift to another new one. I'm think I might go and violate the protection and remove the lyrics. We are claiming that a living person sang that song (which is disputed). To then put up lyrics unsourced and an unsourced translation seems like the strongest WP:BLP violation to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Some movement has been made here and some sources have been found. If you'd like to chime in with your opinion it would be appreciated. AniMate 18:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I have seen your message and I have responded in detail on the Administrator's Noticeboard. As you will see, there are two sides to every story. The person doing the harrassing is this user Mitsube. -- अनाम गुमनाम 00:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I found it from Ministry of Finance of Thailand website. [14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by AkAiBaRa (talk • contribs) 05:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess i just confused with wich one is the largest or biggest, in terms of population or metropolitan area, but I found this two goverment pages about sao paulo's population and metropolitan area http://www.cidadedesaopaulo.com/ingles/dados.asp, and another one about mexico's city population and metropolitan area [Spanish]http://www.setravi.df.gob.mx/vialidades/numeralia.html, So this two pages ratify sao paulos's position 1(by the way this is the link in wich I thought mexico city was largest/biggest http://population-statistics.com/wg.php?x=&men=gcis&lng=es&dat=32&geo=-2&srt=pnan&col=aohdq&pt=a&va=x), thank you for let me know that i need more sources before editing, I hope it works as an argument or i guess i will be blcked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe0 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)