This is an archive of past discussions with User:AlexandrDmitri. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Sometimes the edits come so thick and fast that those of us monitoring articles like list of common misconceptions miss some occurrences of spam when looking at our watch lists. I even missed your tag. Anyway, thanks for your efforts. In the future, if you see something that's obviously promotional and clearly not added in good faith, you can just delete it instead of tagging it. Leaving a spam link in an article gives the spammer free advertising and drives web traffic to the spammer's site. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Enjoy editing while you can. Eventually your watch list will grow to the point where you spend more time dealing with spam and vandalism than improving articles. That will probably happen after 500 or so articles. Then you know it's time to cut down your watch list! ~Amatulić (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!
Man, am I glad you caught me. I just logged on. I was going to mentor that little twerp; we had a discussion last night on the talk page of one of his socks. If this is the thanks I get, he's toast. No more Mr. Nice Guy. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the support
I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh no
I thought is was the money section of msn so it's reliable. Oh, we have to change it back. We can change it to the Hut in a few weeks after it's officially announced. Sorry! User F203 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Eurovision!
You appear to be someone that may be interested in joining WikiProject Eurovision. Please accept this formal invitation from a current member of the project.
We offer a place for you to connect with users who also like Eurovision and facilitate team work in the development of Eurovision articles.
We also publish a monthly newsletter that keeps you up to date on project, member, and Eurovision news.
If you decide to join the project, please add your name to this list.
Alex, Reverted the crashed into sea comment, one thing is pretty clear in this accident and that is it did not crash into the sea, it broke up in the air long before. Parts landed 50kms apart. The reference is just using sloppy language, refer the many other references that tell the story. Ex nihil (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
When BEA mentioned finding pieces from all over the plane, I couldn't accept that easily; separation of bodies and parts in two main locations 50 kms apart can possibly be explained if tail sectioned opened and released intial passengers and parts. With the tail still attached only to breakup(with impact damage as attached vs free falling which would not have much spash damage) on impact could be in an explanation of above and the news on July 2, 2009 about high speed belly contact.Patelurology2 (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The following found on discussion page where points to look for are even being disregarded as speculation or forum activity. What information to look for and meaning behind all this should be part of discussion in order to improve the main page of anything in wikipedia; a writeup on this is needed so that when such points are presented, this should not be discarded as forum activity. Anyway, the following in block quote comes from posting by someone on talk page and seems to be a part of BEA official release. The content of the block quote seems to be in confirmation with my feeling above with respect to tail release of bodies in air at a distance from location of separation on impact. This is being written here because work is being dicarded from discussion page because supposedly is a forum activity.
1.12.3 Visual inspection. The tail fin was damaged during its recovery and transport but the photographs available made it possible to identify the damage that was not the result of the accident. The middle and rear fasteners with the related fragments of the fuselage hoop frames were present in the fin base. The distortions of the frames showed that they broke during a forward motion with a slight twisting component towards the left.p.35
A posting on Air France 447 talk page, for your information pertains to inappropriate comment from someone about one's nationality is as follows. This may be of interest to you.
With respect to the comments above questioning one's nationality, let us remind ourselves, if this is not germane to the Wikipedia mission, it should not be questioned; we all belong to Wikipedia Nation.
Hi, I have no problem with any edits, as long as the meaning of the sentence is not changed. I agree with your proposals. --Ferengi (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Different language Wikipedia pages for AF447 and respective talk pages need further study by active contributors of their respective language pages as an example of divergence and similarities in evolution of study of any subject at hand. e.g., a link for French page is noted here....French wikipedia page for AF447... Language is no barrierPatelurology2 (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
On 2 July 2009, the BEA released a detailed intermediate report, which detailed descriptions of all known facts, and a summary of the visual examination of the rudder and the other parts of the aircraft that had been recovered at that time. According to the BEA, this examination showed that:
the aircraft was likely to have struck the surface of the sea in normal flight attitude, with high vertical acceleration;[Note 3]
there were no signs of fire or explosion;
the aircraft did not break up in flight.
I removed "was" in the sentence and still I was not satisfied and was trying to re-word totally in the background; being a beginner didn't want drastic changes. The sentence origially as is now, is awkwardly unsatisfactory and removing 'was' still is unsatisfactory, so needs more thinking. Remember that, the beginnining of sentence to be incorporated from " According to the BEA, this examination showed that: "Patelurology2 (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
the aircraft probably struck.... might do it----- I thought that the first time, but it would change lot of words with probable change in meaning re opinion etc.Patelurology2 (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
You did MD from France. Is there any english medium French medical school ?yousaf465
The Pierre et Marie-Curie University in Paris offers some limited courses in English [2] (note that the information is given in French). However, they also note [3] that the University is a scientific and medical University and that a good knowledge of written and spoken French is required. When I obtained my MD there were no courses in English that I was aware of, and I studied in French (of which I am a native speaker). Regards AlexandrDmitri (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. So you did you MD in French. No university offers MD in Englsih then ?yousaf465
Unfortunately I cannot tell you much more than a Google search will come up with. I studied in France in French, and practiced in France. As for Sweden and Switzerland, off the cuff: Swedes tend to learn English from a very early age and master it frequently; Switzerland is more complex with regions speaking French (with slight variations), Swiss-German (which is not a written language) unofficially and German officially, Italian and more rarely Romansh, and is not an EU member. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
What about rest of Europe, especalliy Switzerland and Sweden.yousaf465
Not that I can find easily. However, you might like to consider studying in the UK, where your UK MD will be mutually recognised in the European Union. However, out of experience, you need to speak the basics of the local language - and medicine is far from basic - to practice in France. For example, all information about a drug licensed in France will be given primarily in French. What is appreciated, however, is a Doctor capable of communicating in English, especially in larger communities. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
List Of Morocco butterflies
I put my thoughts on this articles talk page as you suggested.Believe me checklist compilation is not creative. Very useful but a total bore and invariably controversial.I think that Tarrier's copyright probably relates to his site design and layout.Nonetheless you have a point (the page is too close a copy rather from deference than any other motive) and I will make some changes and add some refs and comments (September). Many thanks.I hope we can improve this article and also give some thought to the issue In Wikiproject Lepidoptera.Best wishes from Ireland Robert Notafly (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Butterfly treat for both of you from the Late Principal of the Rajkumar College, Rajkot in India *Principal Wynter-Blyth, M.A. (1957) Book- Butterflies of the Indian Region, Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, India.Patelurology2 (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what the problem with what I did is. I reverted two vandalism edits as an anonymous user. If you have a problem with an anonymous editor actually contributing for once, or are simply spouting out convoluted and automated responses to spontaneous edits like mine; then I will refrain from contributing to wikipedia. 12.240.59.56 (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Please accept my sincere apologies for the inadvertent welcome template, apologies which I have also posted at your talk page. I am not quite sure what happened here:
(cur) (prev) 11:11, 13 July 2009 AlexandrDmitri (talk | contribs) (18,428 bytes) (Undid revision 301837397 by 82.69.95.176 (talk)Vandalism) (undo)
The RfC on article sourcing was closed by Moonriddengirl (talk·contribs) as an uninvolved editor. The decisions were for each source:
ESCToday: Reliable
ESCKaz: Semi-reliable
ESCTime: Not reliable
Oikotimes: No consensus
More details on the decision as well as the full RfC can be found on the project talk page. The decisions made in the RfC will likely impact on future drafts of the article guidelines. Please note that further use of Oikotimes and ESCTime is discouraged and existing uses should be replaced with reliable sources. If no other source exists for the information, leave the current source for the time being.
Due to a new naming convention relating to the use of the term "FYR Macedonia", the Republic of Macedonia should be referred to as "Macedonia" in Eurovision articles. Mention of the country's participation in the Contest under the name "FYR Macedonia" should be written in the lead of articles such as Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest, though it is not necessary to express this fact in the general Contest articles.
Two months after the 2009 Contest ended, the EBU revealed the full jury and televoting results for each country on its website. The results showed that Norway was the winner of both the jury and the televoting, while many placings would have changed had no jury voting taken place.
Georgia announced its return to the Contest, while the Czech Republic will withdraw from the 2010 Contest.
Welcome to the twelfth edition of the WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter!
It has been a very slow couple of months in terms of Eurovision news since the passing of the 2009 Contest, however, it has been a very busy time for guidelines and policies affecting our project. Landmark decisions have been made regarding our use of sources and even how we are to refer to Macedonia. In addition, several of our Good Articles have been delisted as part of a task force charged with maintaining the quality of Wikipedia's Good Articles.
With there being less information to add and therefore less to do for some, we need to focus on the upkeep and quality of our project's articles and getting those inactive members active once again. We can do this by making sure all new guidelines and naming policies are adhered to and by working to move articles up the quality scale. We are a WikiProject and we all work towards a similar goal. Introduce yourself to your fellow members and get active!
Hi, and welcome to the Aviation WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to aviation.
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
Hello AlexandrDmitri, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Roja Kootam has been removed. It was removed by Fences and windows with the following edit summary '(Deprod. Seems like quite a hit in India, it was Srikanth's first role for which he won a Tamil best actor award, launching his career.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Fences and windows before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - TrevorMacInniscontribs05:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the reference. I was about to change my !vote but the AFD had already been closed as a keep (but for me still needs a rewrite). The source is very interesting and could prove a basis for an article. However, the random list of words (which are not sourced) need revisiting. Regards, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, would you like it if I gave this account rollback rights? This will allow you to quickly revert blatantly non-productive edits that you come across. I have reviewed your edits and you are trusted enough to use such a feature appropriately. Camaron · Christopher ·talk10:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - August 2009
Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.
There has been some discussion on if a monthly newsletter is viable. The current result is not clear, though it appears for the time being months will simply be skipped as necessary when project activity is low.
There has been a heated debate on how to deal with criticism and controversy in Eurovision Song Contest article, with a proposal made to re-organise articles to avoid dedicated "controversy" and "criticism" sections in order to have maximum neutral point of view policy compliance.
The RTL Group has declared that they are seriously considering a return of Luxembourg to the Eurovision Song Contest for 2010.
Azerbaijan's participation in the 2010 Eurovision Song Contest has been put in doubt following controversial actions which are believed to have occurred after the 2009 Contest. Azerbaijan has denied that any questioning of individuals over voting in the contest has occurred.
Welcome to the thirteenth edition of the WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter!
August 2009 will not be remembered as a good month for WikiProject Eurovision. The number of this newsletter might have something to do with it, other possible explanations include circumstances, time of year, and even just coincidence. In any case we have had no new members and no further GA or FA article promotions.
The demotion of Eurovision Song Contest, probably the most important article on the project, was a historic blow. Reasons for this and other demotions in recent months include an inflation of article standards, article deterioration through inappropriate edits, and possibly inappropriate promotions in some cases.
We should remember however that despite these demotions we still have 2 FAs, 9 GAs, and 41 B-class articles, as well as 2 Featured Lists. This is a big achievement for a project with only 75 members, a small amount compared to other projects. To compare WikiProject Schools has 292 members with no newsletter, and WikiProject Video games has a massive 1,298 members with only a quarterly newsletter.
This project will likely be disadvantaged for a long time to come with limited membership and fluctuating activity during the year, but it will grow out of this blip.
For the attention of the administrator assessing my ACC account creation interface request
I am an active user of en-Wikipedia and somewhat less so of fr-Wikipedia, mainly in the realms of fighting vandalism, occasional copyediting, AFD discussions and Help Desk enquiries. I have recently been granted permission to use the Rollback feature, but so far the reverts I have made have had to be undos in order to explain the revert correctly (no explicit vandalism spotted so far).
I am methodical, process-oriented and pragmatic, and I take the time to measure the decisions I take. I believe that my language skills could be of use to ACC, as I not only speak a number of languages fluently (French, English, German and Russian) but am able to spot blatant misuse of words in similar languages.
As I no longer work full time, and have reduced my volunteer work even further on another site where I am the equivalent of an administrator (with the power to gag, kick and ban IP addresses during online chat), I can dedicate a number of hours per day to the creation of new accounts.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me here or by email.
Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. FunPika00:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Alexandr didn't, but I just did. It was cute. If you enjoy writing articles like this, then the good people at Uncyclopedia will probably welcome you with open arms. — Sebastian21:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Speedy delete
AlexandrDmitri,
My first few pages I was just messing around with my cousin and I understand that I cannot do that on this site. Can I remove the speedy delete notices for the pages from my talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoxiouscobra (talk • contribs) 19:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
You may remove content from your own userpage, but the history of edits made to the page will be kept. I'm glad that you have realised that Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia with serious ambitions. Please take the time to read some of the policies and guidelines that I linked to, notably the ones about creating your first article. Whilst this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, further abuse puts you at risk of having your editing privileges restricted. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
on the toney liakakis page
I am trying to link sources like the ring magazine but I do not know how, also boxing rex is a good place too, is there anyway you could add these sources to the page please. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delmorph (talk • contribs) 19:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately the boxer.com link that you inserted into the Toney Liakakis article was automatically reverted by an automated tool (otherwise known as a 'bot') called User:XLinkBot. It appears that the bot has this site on its blacklist as a site which does not conform to our external links policy: this means that each time you attempt to insert the boxer.com link, the bot will remove it again. As I am not the person who created the bot, I am not able to do anything about this particular site, although you can question why the link is blacklisted on the bot's userpage. I don't know if the boxing rex link is permitted either (and you haven't given me the full URL so I can't check), but if you find that this link is also being reverted, then the same reasoning applies. I'm sorry that I can't be of much more help.
One last thing, when you leave a message on someone's talkpage, please remember to sign by typing ~~~~, or by clicking on the link just below the editing screen where it says "Sign your posts on talk pages". Otherwise we have no idea who has left the message, and another bot has to come along and sign for you later. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
National Media Council
Hello AlexandrDmitri, just a quick note about the Arabic page you recently tagged for deletion (المجلس الوطني للإعلام). You tagged the page under WP:CSD A2, this criteria should be used on foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project, how ever the Arabic wiki does not have an article on the National Media Council (المجلس الوطني للإعلام)(Verify). You should not tag pages with CSD A2 unless you are certin that the page exists on another Wikimedia project. I've now redirected the page to the National federal council, which appears to be associated with the National Media Council. Hope this is all okay with you and that I am making sense. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions on the matter. I've seen you around today and you've been doing great NPP work, so please don't let this get you down, all the best SpitfireTally-ho!20:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your message and guidance. A colleague, Tim Cresswell (also a human geographer) has a wiki page. I have read the criteria for notability, and relativities aside, am content that you might wish to delete the entry I have posted. I assume that I need do nothing else at this point but confirmation of that would be gratefully received. Elaines1963 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is frequently brought up during deletion requests, and is an argument to avoid. Unfortunately I have only just woken up and I see that the page you created has been deleted. It is possible that a systems administrator (or sysop or admin as we call them here) would be willing to restore your material which would allow you to work on it in your userspace. However, as I pointed out, if you have a conflict of interest, whilst that does not preclude you from creating an article about yourself, you will have to be extra thorough in sourcing and making sure that the article presents information in a neutral way. Regards, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Tropical storm Mujigae (2009)
sorry, but it seems you interupt me. you see, I'm STILL FIXING IT.please wait for me to finish it.Jpuligan_12 12 - September - 2009 (0741 UTC)
This is the incorrect name to use. It should be "Tropical Storm Mujigae (2009)" (note the capitalized "S" which was absent in the original article name). As it stands it must be moved to the correct name or redirected into 2009 Pacific typhoon season. -- RattleMan07:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
It has the potential to become a good article, but much of it would have to be re-written due to Jpuligan's not-so-great English (he's from the Philippines). One of the members of our WikiProject had a sandbox he was working on, which has a comprehensive "Meteorological history" section but no impact. Meanwhile, Jpuligan's article has a rudimentary "Meteorological history" and some impact. I'm not sure what to do at this point; I'll have to wait for other project members to wake up so I can consult with them. -- RattleMan08:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello AlexandrDmitri. When you tag the article with speedy template, don't forget to notify the author, as at Lai Pinel. The pre-formated tag you can find at the bottom of the relevant db-notice. Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Alexander. I added comments everywhere where appropriate, defending the article and plan to revise it as soon as I could. Would be thankful if it could be kept as a stub for a while. If you have any questions as regards my edits, please feel free to bypass usual Wikipedia 'efficient communication standart' by mailing me what you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Kozharov (talk • contribs) 12:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I have copied your request to the Article for Deletion (AfD) page, where the deletion discussion is in progress. I see that you have already commented there. I generally prefer to keep discussions on Wikipedia unless it is a confidential matter, although you can email me. One last request: when you comment on a talk page or an AfD discussion, please remember to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ or clicking on the tildes next to the Sign your posts on talk pages below; that way we know to whom to reply (otherwise we have to wait for an automated tool (bot) to come along and sign for you. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I wrote the article, The Inventory Price Index Computation (IPIC) Method, and that website it is on is MY website!!! So don't delete it. I am giving permission for Wikipedia to publish it.
Williambrighenti (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)William Brighenti
Inventory Price Index Computation (IPIC) Method Article
You have correctly added on the {{hangon}} tag, and have commented on your ownership of the article. The Wikipedia process to do this is to follow the Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Granting_us_permission_to_copy_material_already_online, which allows you to certify that you are indeed the author. As you can appreciate, this is an open Wikipedia, where anyone can edit, and we have no means of knowing that you are indeed the author unless you follow this procedure.
In order to address the WP:SPAM issues, please read up on that link so that the text can be adapted to Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia which relies upon external reliable sources, notability and being verifiable. It is above all the final line "Please contact William Brighenti, Certified Public Accountant, Accountants CPA Hartford, via the website, http://www.cpa-connecticut.com, for questions, comments, and examples illustrating the double-extention and link-chain methodologies.", which clearly promotes your services that is the most concerning element of the article, although a rewrite to make the text appropriate to Wikipedia may furthermore be necessary.
Finally, as author of the document, you appear to have a conflict of interest, which whilst not preluding you from contributing to this article, may make it difficult to write from a neutral point of view.
Inventory Price Index Computation (IPIC) Method Article
Blatant advertising?! The article discusses the technical details of computing an index used for taxes. The references are the Federal regulations. I've provided an expliquer--or interpretation--of those regulations and notices.
Blatant advertising?! I only mentioned myself at the very end in the event the reader wants an illustrative example or has comments.
Can you expain to me exactly why the Guy Harvey page has been protected, and the edits I inserted (re: the availability of Guy Harvey products) were deleted.
If you go to the Guy Harvey page and click on the history tab, you will see that it was semi-protected (expires 23:53, 10 October 2009) by administrator User:Hu12 with the note "excessive spamming". Semi-protection means that only confirmed users may edit this page until the semi-protection expires. Please note that I did not request page protection. You may take this up with the acting administrator, but my advice would be to check first with our policies on links to commercial sites via the link WP:SPAM, and in the meantime use the talkpage to discuss any changes you wish to see on the article. One last request: when you comment on a talk page or an AfD discussion, please remember to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ or clicking on the tildes next to the Sign your posts on talk pages below; that way we know to whom to reply (otherwise we have to wait for an automated tool (bot) to come along and sign for you. Thank you. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is about a totally non-notable kid's meal toy from taco bell. It was created without any backing citation that would establish notability and it is doubtful any can be found.
Thank you Jeremy for taking the time to let me know as a minor contributor, something that not everyone takes the time to do. My only contributions were to try and find at least some sort of reference to this product on the internet, to add in the external link to the Taco Bell corporate website, do some very minor copy editing and remove some vandalism whilst the article was on public view. As the the Taco Bell corporate website is in Flash no direct link could be given to the fleeting reference to this meal toy, if I remember correctly. In any case, I was fairly unsure about the notability of this article from the first, and as such, will not be contesting the prod. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Recent account creation requests from Namibia (IP 196.*.*.*)
(I post this message to some account creators that recently have handled Namibian account requests)
Hi all, I just joined the ACC team, partly because I want to help out with our own students. Polytechnic of Namibia has only a few IP addresses over which everything is NATted. We have recently encouraged a number of first-year IT students to become active on WP to improve coverage of Namibia. Ever since (3 weeks ago) we have run into the 6-accounts-per-IP-per-day problem. Unfortunately, the IPs involved have collected a few warnings on vandalism but many new accounts have made edits that are constructive, or that are in the sandbox. Please agf in these cases as you have done before. Generally, all unique requests from accounts of the students.polytechnic.edu.na mail server should be okay. I can personally vouch that every unique account on this server belongs to one and only one person; students must be enrolled at our institution to obtain an email address from this server. If you have questions please contact me on my talk page. Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Language Ref Desk
Thanks, AD. Every once in a while, I wonder why I bother with the Ref Desk. The tone of some responses was decidedly negative, even antagonistic, which, for one such as I, who requires sweetness and pleasantness in all things, even when I'm being disagreed with, which is absolutely ok in itself, leaves a very unwelcome bitter taste. Your support, though, is very welcome. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Speedy tagging
Please wait for new stub to have existed for more than a minute[5] or so before you tag it under A7 or other speedy criteria, especially when it is a newly registered user who created the article. You may wish to consider welcoming the user, helping them learn what is needed for a good article here, etc, rather than biting them the second they try to contribute. Just a thought. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice19:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Granted, I tagged this as db-nocontent within a minute of it being created.
A3. No content.
Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images. However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion. Similarly, this criterion doesn't cover a page with an infobox with non-trivial information.
I agree with you that we should not bite the newcomers, and I did place the standard welcome template on the author's userpage before the notice about the CSD tag. Had there been anything more than "New article name is Digital Media Sandbox Consortium (DMSC)" plus the tags left by the Article Creation Wizard, and had seemed like a viable stub, I would have marked the article with the noreferences tag. I will nevertheless take into consideration your comments about biting new users when tagging in the future. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, you seem to have managed to scare the editor off[6] so we'll never know if the article would have, in a few edits, become something less objectionable. I am beginning to side with the editors who argue that the reason we're seeing a huge decline in new editors is because no one is helped, they're just bitten. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice22:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you elaborate further on your assertion comment that I seem to have scared them off by the link you left as all I can see is that the user has made three edits (first back in April 2007), the last being the creation of the article I tagged? I can't find any edits along the lines "I will no longer edit Wikipedia" but I may be mistaken. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Struck and corrected, word was indeed inaccurate. As I said above, I have taken your thoughts about biting on board. The "may be mistaken comment" was not meant to be passive-aggressive, but was a genuine question. However, as you have pointed out that you only guessed, my question is answered. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Appreciated. As a comparison, you may wish to view the first draft of Intelligent design, now a featured article, as it appeared at first edit here. Its a bit more fleshed out than the article you tagged, but not much. More importantly, it is unsourced, contains opinion, probably synthesis, and makes no assertion whatsoever about the notability of the topic. Back then, it was a fairly obscure topic, too. Yet a few edits later and it was shaping into a real article, and now its very good. Of course, had it been speedied Ed would have simply restarted it - but he was, in his words, a Big Wheel, not a newbie who created that article with his/her first edit. Just food for thought - appreciate your consideration. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I would have definitely left that article to someone else's discretion, as I do with many new articles (bands, songs, actors, films... to name but a few). There's something odd going on with the history of the Intelligent design article on my computer: when I look at the earliest contribs, and get to [7], the previous contrib is from 2002, whereas the contrib I'm looking at is in 2001. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
To redirect to cite web. If the parameters are dirfferent then it can be used to translate them. in the longer term a translation can be run, but I have my hands full with the French communes right now. RichFarmbrough, 20:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC).
Is there an easy way to change the name of a page, as our company is now officially called BCS, The Chartered Institute of IT. Also the logo has changed and is copyrighted so not sure how to get this added.
Any help you can provide will be much appreciated.
Yes, there is an easy way to change the name of any article: using the Move tab on the top of the screen. However, the title BCS on its own is used as a disambiguation page, which currently lists British Computer Society as one of the links. Changing it to BCS, the Chartered Institute of IT is possible, though you might like to discuss this first on the talk page of the article. Your website is unclear about the name to be used, using different varients thoughout (British Computer Society (BCS), "BCS, the", "BCS - The"...).
As for changing the logo, I'm afraid that I have no experience whatsoever with images, so I can't help you there myself. However, if you click on the History tab of the article, you will see that other people have worked on this article, so they might be able to help, and again, the talk page is a good place to discuss this.
As you are new, you were probably not aware of this, but using the company's name as your username is in strict violation of our username policy. If you are acting as an individual editor you can request that your current username be changed here: you don't have to use your real name, just anything but the company name.
I corrected your edit here. Take a look at the differences marked in red. You were using the wrong characters: you should use < and > around the ref tags to both open and close the reference. I've also changed verite to vérité, as this is the correct spelling in French. If you are still unclear, please drop me a note again. One last request: when you comment on a talk page or an AfD discussion, please remember to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ or clicking on the tildes next to the Sign your posts on talk pages below; that way we know to whom to reply (otherwise we have to wait for an automated tool (bot) to come along and sign for you. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I accept your edits as they are since the figures you introduced are in any case more precise and less questionable than the figures that were presented previously. However stating that "EB says nothing of the sort" is not quite accurate. The figures you removed were based on a rough estimate given in the Languages section of the Morocco article in EB, which claims that "Arabic, the national and official language of Morocco, is spoken by two-thirds of the population, and Modern Standard Arabic is taught in schools. The Amazigh language, known as Tamazight, spoken by roughly one-third of the people, has been preserved in Amazigh enclaves. Many Imazighen also speak Arabic, and Tamazight is taught in schools." Elostirion (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies: as the link took me to the Ethnic groups section, I did not see the correlation you had made from the language section, which would indeed be an accurate way of differentating Arab speakers from Berber speakers. Total and utter WP:OR but my better half speaks absolutely no Berber dialects whatsoever, 'just' Moroccan Arabic, Classical Arabic and French, but defiantly self-identifies Amazigh and not as Arab. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Apology accepted. As for the ORness, I am pleased to say that we are very similar in the latter respect (I too speak Darija and Classical Arabic as well as French), though I prefer to identify myself as both Berber and Arab, my reasoning being that in all honesty it is practically impossible to trace my roots far back enough, and that in any case "modern" Moroccan culture is permeated with elements from both Berber and Arab cultures. Elostirion (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Chukran bezaf. I note with interest that you indicate en-N but ar-4 and fr-4. Now when are they going to get around to creating a Babel userbox for Darija (version marocaine), so that I can put -0 (maybe -1 by the end of January)? -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact is that Arabic (or Darija in any case) is my native language, in the sense that it was the first language that I learned. However I don't deem myself skillful enough at Classical Arabic to qualify as a "native speaker" (whatever that may mean in the case of Classical Arabic). As for French (the second language I began to learn), a perceptive listener would probably be able to discern that I am not a native speaker. I began to learn English early in my life (around the age of 6) as my family moved to other countries (Egypt at first) and I began to attend international schools where the language of instruction was English. It is therefore my "native" language only in the sense that it is now the language I master most, and that native speakers would generally mistake me for a native speaker. Elostirion (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
It is by similar reasoning that I put English (actually learned fourth) and French (third) as "native" languages, whereas in the past my proficiency in German (second) far surpassed French, but has been "demoted" due to lack of use, and Russian was technically the first language I spoke, and probably should sadly be demoted to ru-3 these days. I had the advantage of speaking them all from an extremely early age, whereas at 39, I seriously doubt that my Darija will ever be anything but at best passable. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I jsut thought i would let you knwo there a chance User Pr3st0n might tno accept due to them leaving wikipedia for ahwile due to some personal problems. but i am pretty sure they and the other user had provisional agree in the talk page to take it to some sort of meditation :0 hoe this helps. they mgiht still be here reading there message ever now and then not sure--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. I have left a note on his talkpage. If there is to be mediation, obviously all parties have to participate, but I suppose I can start by summarizing the situation and checking that I have fully understood the issue. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Alex, I just wanted to inform you that I have posted several comments and input as per your request on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-24/List of channels on Virgin TV. Out of the other 2 users also involved in this, only 1 of them has assumed good faith. Another user is using underhanded tactics when they reply to my comments, to which I find disturbing. As I am partaking in some assignments, as per 'Adoption'; I am abiding to all guidelines as shown in Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I would appreciate if all of the users involved in this mediation process kept to these policies too. Kindest regards, Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe there is nothing underhand about what I have said or done. I find it more disturbing that you are making public accusations against me without filing a complaint or informing me personally. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
In compliance to AGF, I have the right to put forward any discussion towards the mediator dealing with this case. If I feel that something may seem to be out of proportion, then it is my duty to make sure the mediator is aware, so that they can investigate it further. I have broken no rules in doing this. Remember, wikipedia does not have firm rules, but they recommend that adhere to the policies, to which you will find I am doing so, and have done so by my posting above. Pr3st0n (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Informing is one thing but you have made clear and negative accusations against me, that is not assuming good faith. In fact even citing AGF can be seen as an assumption of bad faith (WP:AAGF) - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
And although it states that in WP:AAGF; it is also pointed out at Wikipedia:Trifecta that we are to Ignore all rules; maintain a neutral POV (to which I have been doing); and lastly don't be a dick. Now with focusing on the behaviour, albeit you may not be intending to sound patronising or make another user feel they are stupid; but at times some of the way you word a reply can been seen just slightly in that way. Not everyone notices it at first, but re-reading a comment more than once can start to put the meaning behind it in a different perspective. We all know that just by reading a comment, we cannot determine or assume what tone of voice is being used. When you say to someone "...you don't even have a V+ box to check properly...", you can be making them out to be a liar, when they are only providing information that they have seen with their own eyes. To remark with that kind of comment could be deemed as misconstruing. I think we need to focus more now on the discrepancies that have been noted with Virgin Media, and avoid such future remarks which could be seen as hurtful to the other. Pr3st0n (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not targeting you and nothing that I have said is uncivil in my opinion. This all too familiar. Don't over analysis what I say, assume good faith and realise that similar comments could be applied to you. That is all I will say on the matter. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It is a shame that mediation has fallen into disagreement at such an early stage where I am simply trying to understand the heart of the dispute, establish the information you agree on and what remains to be resolved. I hope that this will soon blow over and we will return to discussing the facts of the matter, as provided by reliable sources with everyone assuming good faith of the other parties' point of view. Given the comments you have all made on the mediation case, I will move forward within the next two days. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I have spent a bit of time at NPP, and tend to focus on the same areas: hoaxes, nonsense, vandalism, A7 for people and occasionally websites, attack pages and spam. You soon get to know the templates off by heart. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
attack page
Something like Rump ranger, which spefically mentions a person by name and location, should be tagged as an attack page instead of prodded for deletion. There's absolutely no reason to keep it around for a week. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I hesitated, as indeed a person was mentioned, but the definition (which is derogatory when applied to that person) was not elaborated upon with regards to the person. Had that been the case, I would not have hesitated to tag with db-attack. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello AlexandrDmitri, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Prof.Dr. Essam E. Khalil has been removed. It was removed by Radiaeldeeb with the following edit summary '(I removed the dated prod because simply I am trying to write about the achievements of a professional person not his CV. I removed any information that might be considered a CV information.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Radiaeldeeb before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Answers Solutions Knowledge
On October 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Answers Solutions Knowledge, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for "Sea Peoples", I could not find anything appropriately similar on the page where it is used (the two pages are the same, via a redirect). I am not qualified to know if these are the same group of people, who you linked to, as they seem to be more Mediterranean/Egypt than Mesopotamia. This is where really it needs collaboration from the people who actually know something about Mesopotamia.
A colleague of mine at work is called Sasha, though he is Ukranian I think. He anglicises his name "Alexander". I thought it might amuse you. I must admit it foxed me at first, a bit like, I imagine, when people try to find William and meet someone called Bill. SimonTrew (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm no historian, so I can't be of any help there. It was the use of the plural "peuples" in French which drew my attention which to me implies groups of people, or peoples, so the Sea Peoples article may actually be a misnomer, or a faux ami. The French article fr:Peuples de la mer indicates that is the Egyptians who used this term for foreigners arriving by the sea in the 13th Century BC, which sort of adds up. However, as I cannot be sure, maybe the relevant WikiProject can be of assistance? Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Medation future
Hello,
I am not sure if you are aware but preston how now been blocked i am not sure of why but this means preston is no logner able to take part i the medaiton process but i stil rather have it cluded with all parties happy so not sure how this will effect things.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Andrew for letting me know. I made a comment on the ANI board yesterday, and had just checked it about half an hour ago, to find that he has been indef blocked. I will drop a note to Jasmeen to get her comments and hope to conclude by Sunday. As from Monday my time on Wikipedia will be reduced, although you can contact me via the E-mail this user function as I check email regularly. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Son of Indian hospital CEO commits suicide by jumping out of window
Hello, as you may have noticed in each edition of the WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter we have a "from the members" section so project members can write their own comments of a few paragraphs about the project, including commenting on recent events, suggest where it should go e.t.c. Since you have yet to do it and you are an active project member, I thought I should ask you for this month. If you are happy to do it, the draft newsletter is linked above, feel free to fill in the "from the members" section as you wish. You can look at previous newsletters for ideas at Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Newsletters. If you are too busy, I am happy to find someone else to do it. Camaron · Christopher ·talk20:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I have made a few minor modifications, other than that it seems pretty good, thanks for helping out. With more news now added the newsletter is ready for publication, though it will not go out until the end of the month in a weeks time. Camaron · Christopher ·talk10:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - September and October 2009
Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.
This is the first edition of the WikiProject Eurovision newsletter in a bimonthly format. Following a discussion on the project talk page this may now become the regular format for the newsletter during the months that the project is less active.
A proposal was made to change Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) to discourage the use of numeric dates, primarily YYYY-MM-DD (e.g. 2009-08-12 for 12 August 2009), in footnotes as at present it is only discouraged in the main article body. The proposal now seems unlikely to pass due to large levels of opposition, though it could have had a large impact on this project as the date format YYYY-MM-DD is frequently used in Eurovision for reference publication and access dates. Further discussion can be found on the project talk page.
Eurovision News
31 countries have confirmed their participation in the 2010 Contest. ESCToday has suggested that the Eurovision Song Contest may be entering a crisis due to the possibility of a large drop in the number of participants next year with the ongoing international recession hitting the budgets of many broadcasters in Europe.
Luxembourg and Monaco have both ruled out a return to the Eurovision Song Contest for 2010. A decision by San Marino on if to return or not has not yet been made.
Hungary declared it is pulling out of the Eurovision Song Contest due to the financial difficulties of the national broadcaster Magyar Televízió (MTV).
National selection details for the 2010 Contest are now available for sixteen countries. Despite the contest being over six months away, Bulgaria has already announced that the artist that will represent the country in 2010 will be Miroslav Kostadinov (who is frequently referred to as Miro).
It has been announced that the voting system used for the Eurovision Song Contest semi-finals will change in 2010. The previous system was introduced in 2008 along with the first use of two semi-finals; it involved nine out of ten final places per semi-final being determined exclusively by televote, with the tenth place being determined by juries. This will be replaced by a more balanced 50% jury voting, 50% televoting system.
Javine Hylton was also nominated for GA status but was quickly failed due to a large number of concerns. The nominator, Judo112 (talk·contribs), was later found to be a sock puppet of a previously blocked user.
Welcome to the fourteenth edition of the WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter!
There have been quite a few updates to the 2010 Contest article since 1 September. Nine countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Ireland, Macedonia, Malta, Poland, Serbia, and Slovenia) have confirmed their participation, and the article in general has seen many changes. Sadly, whilst some editors have been working hard to provide reliable sources, others have been less thorough and the article has had to be semi-protected again to prevent further disruption. This is a shame, as ideally anyone should be able to edit; however, the talk page is always available to bring new information to light.
The participating countries' section has also been updated to allow the inclusion of information about the language, artist and song (with an English translation as appropriate), although to date this is very much a work in progress. As news comes in, we look forward to enriching this section in the coming months—backed-up of course with sources!
No new country-specific articles have been written these past two months. If you want to add more detailed information about a country's participation in the 2010 Contest, this is the ideal way to do it, and they are very much appreciated by our readers.
Thanks, AlexandrDmitri, for supporting me in my RFA. It passed unanimously. I am very grateful of your input – if you have any further comments, let me know! Fribbulus Xax (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
G'day i have already notified User:FunPika of this however i see that they have not edited in some time so felt it best to ask here also. I was wondering if you could re-consider my application to become a ACI user. I applied some time ago and below is the response (please note i have removed my email address for privacy).
user_id: 516
user_name: ZooPro
user_onwikiname: ZooPro
user_email:
log_id: 30527
log_pend: 516
log_user: FunPika
log_time: 2009-05-04 23:11:40
log_cmt: Thanks for your interest in helping other users create accounts. Unfortunately, your application was unsuccessful on this occasion. Account creators need to have a reasonable knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures, and as a very new user, it is unlikely that you have that knowledge.
As you can see that application was made some time ago and now i feel i have gained enough experience and trust to apply again. ZooPro05:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
As indeed you have gained experience since your last application I have approved your request. I have left the formal notification on your talk page and will let FunPika know the outcome of my decision. Regards, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I deliberately didn't open it (though probably should have marked it as "Pending" which I have just done) as discussions soon led me to believe that we could resolve this without a case. I have left another note for the filing party, though my previous question has gone unanswered for a while now; if I have no reply in a few days, then I will leave another note saying that I intend to mark the case as closed. If you have any suggestions, they would be most welcome. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't requested that the article be deleted; I created a redirect because there were typographic errors. As the redirect is not necessary (no one is going to type in Foootballer (with three Os), I have requested that the redirect be deleted, not the article. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Александр. Thanks for accepting my request of an account on the ACC account creation interface. I have a problem and hope you might be able to advise. I have been logged on for about four hours this evening. For the majority of the time it says that I am the only user logged in. Then I click on account requests to refresh and it says that there are four of us logged in and that one of them has reserved the one and only task that appeared between my refreshes. (Actually it's been the same user all night.) Do they have some other software that alerts them of requests? Are they refreshing the request lists somehow? It's just too much of a coincidence: I'm alone for an hour then three users appear as a request appears and one reserves a request before I see it; then they all leave. Then I'm alone for an hour until a request appears, then two users appear... ad nausium. ~~ Dr Dec(Talk) ~~21:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much all of the team uses #wikipedia-en-accounts on IRC where a bot informs us when new account requests come in. What you are seeing is people getting the alert in IRC, clicking on the link the bot gives us, and reserving the requests. Whilst it is not an obligation to join IRC, it is by far the most efficient way of catching requests, as if you stay refreshing the tool, there is much less chance of you being able to reserve a request before anyone else does. Regards ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Happy Christmas and new year from WikiProject Eurovision.
This is the second edition of the newsletter to be in a bimonthly format. This will probably continue at least up until the next Eurovision Song Contest when the project is more active.
Editors are reminded that some articles covered WikiProject Eurovision are subject to the biographies of living persons policy. This does not just include biography articles such as Alexander Rybak, but any article with material related to living persons. Such information is highly sensitive, and unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons must be removed immediately. Material which may seen trivial to editors, such as a false claim of participation in a contest, can potentially be highly sensitive to the living persons involved.
Eurovision articles on this project have been repeatedly subject to a form of sneaky vandalism. This involves unregistered users adding false information to articles such as Eurovision Song Contest 2010 (while unprotected). These false claims are then made to look legitimate through the use of "fake references" with false titles and links, example. Cuchufleta (talk·contribs) was blocked indefinitely for creating multiple hoax articles with the same editing technique. Editors are advised to look out for further disruption of this kind, as it seems to be originating from a determined individial or an organised group. More information can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#User:Cuchufleta.
Eurovision News
The EBU released their participants list for the 2010 Eurovision Song Contest on 31 December 2009. 39 countries will take part. Five of these qualify directly to the final, with the 34 remaining countries each competing in one of two semi-finals (seventeen per semi-final).
Five countries have declared they will be withdrawing from the contest in 2010. The Czech Republic are withdrawing due to three semi-final failures and a lack of interest from Czech viewers. Andorra, Hungary, Lithuania, and Montenegro have all declared they are withdrawing for financial reasons.
Georgia is the only country that has declared it will be returning to the contest.
No debuts are planned either with Liechtenstein's only broadcaster 1FLTV having ruled out joining the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) for December 2009. This made a debut by the country for the 2010 Contest no longer possible.
Despite the 2010 Contest being many months away countries are now actively declaring which artists and songs will be representing them at the contest. A table for this can be found at Eurovision Song Contest 2010#Participants. Nearly all of the declared participants now have dedicated entry articles.
Welcome to the fifteenth edition of the WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter!
Another decade has past for the Eurovision Song Contest. The naughties will probably be remembered as a decade of both success and controversy for the contest.
Televoting reached its peak in the early 2000s. This gave the contest a more democratic edge, but by 2008 it was widely believed to have made Eurovision resemble a political and geographic football match rather than a song contest. The EBU took action in 2009 by reducing televoting to having only a 50% weighting in the results of each contest.
Many new countries have joined the contest in the last decade, bringing the number of participants to a new high. Among this some countries withdrew while others returned, though one of the major missing countries, Italy, did not make a return as was hoped by many.
There was not a shortage of controversy either. Two participants went to war, and the buzz over the planned participation of Kosovo put Eurovision in the middle of a political storm. One also cannot forget that this decade saw the introduction of two spin-off contests - the Junior Eurovision Song Contest and the Eurovision Dance Contest. It is still not fully clear on how these fit into this project, perhaps we will work that out during the tens.
Thank you Proofreader77, your kind words are very much appreciated! I look forward to serving the Wikipedia community further in my capacity as trainee clerk, but I won't abandon the Eurovision Song Contest articles. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Question: Have you been interested in Eurovision for a long time. (For example, do you remember when Melissa Mars won the French title?) Proofreader77(interact)05:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I've watched it for many years (over thirty on and off), although to be quite honest, without looking it up I tend not to remember who won when. I just tend to sit back and enjoy (or cringe at) the songs and then dispair at some of the incomprehensible voting. I got interested in the Eurovision Song Contest articles in the run up just before last year's contest and learned an awful lot (which I immediately forgot). That got me interested in contributing to the Eurovision Song Contest 2010 article. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thirty years! Well, then I'll assume you're older than Juliancolton. LoL You certainly have the perspective to write about it. Excellent.
Again, congratulations. It will be a fascinating year... It's been rather miraculous for me in small ways ... I wish you many blessings and little miracles of beauty as well. Cheers. Proofreader77(interact)06:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
User:AlexandrDmitri has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as AlexandrDmitri's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear AlexandrDmitri!
I have a question regarding the account creation tool. How should IP-range blocks be handled? The guide says nothing specific about this. What is the general rule for this? SwarmTalk23:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Another thing to look at with blocks is to check whether the IP is shared or not. If it is shared, such as a library or educational institution, we don't penalise people who want to create accounts because other users have been, for example, vandalising articles. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Where you commented is for Arbitrators only. The main case page only has the statements from the parties and Arbitrator opinions on. You are neither a party or an Arbitrator so your comment was moved to the talk page as is standard practice. The talk page is archived because it's the comments from uninvolved users before the case opened - they shouldn't be modified. However, any user is free to comment below them and they won't be archived. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter18:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Alexandr. Recently you approved my request for the ACC interface. To be honest, I don't think I will have the time to make much of an impact in that area and there seems to be adequate help already at ACC. If you think it necessary (or if it's required), feel free to undo my approval. I did not intend to mislead anyone about my interest. I am still interested in ACC but I don't feel I can do justice to the task. Thanks for your help and your patience. Tiderolls10:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Unless you particularly want me to remove access there is no need for me to do so. We have quite a number of users who are not that active, and it usually after 45 days of inactivity that a tool admin suspends access (and reinstates upon request). Let me know if you want me to suspend your access or not. Regards ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
A quick request
Hello. Could you point Durova to my post here, please? I want to ensure that she can respond to my post if she would like to, but I feel it would be best if she and I interacted as little as possible. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
You have missed the word "satisfactory" (as in "satisfactory explanation") in your note to Craigy144, which I believe is integral to the spirit of the motion. –xenotalk18:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I have a question - how do you as a Clerk decide to place something as "not passing" versus "requiring further voting" ? Cirt (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
(after two ec) Got caught out with SirFozzie's votes changing on a couple of points whilst I was updating the implementation notes with KnightLago's change of votes. I've corrected the proposed decision you pointed out as well as a FoF. Thanks! -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
That's not how it works. Majority means one more supports than opposes, not 7 more supports than opposes. So it is 7 supports out of 13 that is a majority; if people abstain then the number of supports required also diminishes. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
As I said to your post on my talk page, "There is one arb recused on the entire case, Cool Hand Luke, and three arbs inactive Carcharoth , Hersfold , and Wizardman. That leaves 13 active arbs for this case. However on finding 6A, Risker has recused and Mailer Diablo has abstained. That leaves 11 arbs active on this particular finding, thus the majority for this finding is 6." Paul August☎20:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
From blockshopping [9]
Last time [10] same editor able to pose PhD in history highly prized by [11] Jewish Foundation of Ukraine as "Russian nationalist writer". Here story appeared again. Thank you P.S. See that nice "balance" [12] by Ukrainian Quarterly Spring 1964 or poet Moses Fishbein blog [13]Jo0doe (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not too sure at the moment exactly how I can help you, except to comment that if the allegations of publishing copyright material are true, then that is something which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I'm not too sure either why you have come to me, as I have neither been involved on the articles in question as far as I can tell nor had contact with Moreschi. That said, if you feel that informal mediation is something that would help, then I am willing to offer my services. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Material was not copyrighted (no copyright exist at site with motto knowlage not shared is lost)- and text comprised from the name of ships and thier tonnage. I ask about informal mediation - a kind of third party look at situation.If you advice me any posible solution I would be greatifull ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
[14] - could you advice me a solution for such issue. Actually it's very similar to WP:EEML patern of editing - I also got can present an extencive and long time collections of diff there sources misused, OR, SYN, etc inserted.Please advice. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, AlexandrDmitri. Thank you for moving the statement. I evidently misread the directions, and I appreciate your help and patience. -- Tenebrae (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Accounts that are considered by the interface to be too similar come in marked as "Account Creator Needed" with the name(s) of the user(s) affected and links to verify contributions, creation logs and SUL accounts. You need account creator privileges to be able to handle these accounts, which can be requested at WP:PERM once you start hitting the 6 accounts per day limit. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
With IRC you have the choice of web access or as I prefer using Chatzilla. Now when it comes to which application to choose, there I flounder a little because I'm not particularly techie, and I don't know what OS you are using. Initially I used web access but decided to move to Chatzilla because that offers more functionalities; to be quite honest, I entirely forget how web access worked. Maybe our article on IRC will be of use. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Asgardian Arbitration
Alexander, I had been writing my summary for the evidence page, when I noticed a couple of days ago on that page that it says that they must be kept to 1,000 words. Given the long history, Asgardian's varied offenses, the number of examples at hand, and the inherent need to dig beneath the surface in order to respond to the superficiality of his statements, I do not think that this is realistic. Any such limit would rob the summary of context, depth, nuance, detail, and the insight that I hope to bring to this issue. Can you advise? Nightscream (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
My advice is foremost that less is often more. A huge wall of text quickly becomes tl;dr and the points that you are trying to make will get lost in increased verbiage. Remember that in addition to the 1,000 words you may include up to 100 diffs which them in themselves make more powerful statements as they are concrete exemples of any points you wish to make. I found in my professional life that all too many of my colleagues presented complicated Powerpoint slides with line after line getting down to somestimes 6pt text. They lost the attention of the audience quickly, the salient facts were buried under a heap of detail and the message they were trying to convey did not get across.
I sympathise with your desire to be as accurate and exhaustive as possible, but try giving a summary of what you need to say (with diffs); if anyone has any questions, they will ask them, if anyone disputes anything, they will say so, and any additional replies will not be counted in the 1,000 limit.
Finally, whilst the limit is set at 1,000 there is a small margin of leniency allowed, but for the reasons recommended above, it is suggested that you try to stick as closely to the limit as possible.
I honestly do not know how to present the material accurately in 1,000 words. Diffs alone do not address the logical fallacies that Asgardian employs; they must be refuted with counterargument. If I knew as a given that the arbitrators are not fooled by logical fallacies and lies, then I can assure you, Alexandr, I would not bother to do this. (Indeed, I disliked having to write that summary.) The reason it is not a given to me is because these bits of evidence have been provided in so many other past administrative discussions regarding Asgardian, and none of those commenting have ever given any indication that they discerned them, and have even opined at times that Asgardian had done nothing wrong, or that all the disputes were them were either completely mutual, or the result of bias on the part of his critics, which I find rather inane. It's not that I'm saying I know that that'll be the case with you guys; I'm just saying that I don't know, and felt I had to point out the deceptive nature of Asgardian's statements.
As for the diffs, there are only 115 links to pieces of evidence in my summary (not counting links to policy pages or user pages, which I assume didn't count), so I didn't think that would be too much over the limit to investigate.
Nonetheless, I anticipated it would be edited, which is why I posted it at that subpage too, and provided a link to it. So if you want a clerk to edit it, I'm fine, but I ask that they keep those explanatory intro paragraphs that include that link, so that those who participate have access to all the data. I just hope that they do not overlook the information that will be edited out of my summary from the evidence page because they didn't want to read it.
I will be more than happy to answer any and all questions that are put to me during this process, as I believe that full transparency and an honest, open exchange is the only way to adjudicate things like this in a fair and accurate manner. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk)
Could you please give Nightscream an exception with this one, as the case is too complex to be neatly summarised in that manner? I thought that it was a very good presentation of the situation with a lot of work put into it, and that the case would risk to become very misrepresented, and left unresolved, without it. Dave (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
At over 7,500 words I think the best solution is to keep the copy of the full text in user space and link to it from a summary on the evidence page. Any arbitrator willing to read the entire version is free to read the full version, but also will have a more digestable version available to them. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The article text was copied by me from Kabbalah wiki page, due to the fact that Michael Laitman is the most notable Kabbalah scholar and teacher of our days (although Rav Berg of America is pretty famous too).
The author has posted this article on Wikipedia, but it got deleted, so he saved it at another website for future use. I fulfilled his wishes and restored the article back.
Therefore, please feel free to edit, but NO deletion.
Besides, by quickly glancing thru suggested links re definition of notable and reliable sources I did not identify anything in the text that would violate the mentioned guidelines. Firstly, Laitman's notability is unrelated to his academic achievements. Lastly, the article text is based on Laitman's spoken words and writings where his views are concerned, so it is 100% reliable in that regard (let the others add links where necessary) and as regards biographical details, they are easily verifiable (with Google), so no problems here as well.
As regards the wording, let the readers add their input to rephrase, cut, combine and expand the text.
I have just checked the Michael Laitman page history and I have not made even the slightest edit to it in its present form; that said I note that it has a fairly extensive deletion history and it is possible that I tagged a previous version. Not being an administrator I cannot verify anything that may or may not have happened to previously deleted versions, but if I did tag one of the many versions then it would appear that an administrator agreed with me at that time. ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The articles by quality table has been changed for all WikiProjects as a result of changes to the WP 1.0 bot. Due to these changes editors are encouraged to add the {{EurovisionNotice}} banner to the talk pages of categories, files, templates, portals, disambiguation pages, as well as articles and project pages. This has the benefit of making the table more complete and covering such pages under article alerts.
An FAQ has been created for the Eurovision Song Contest 2010 page in an attempt to mitigate repetitive discussions on the talk page about content in the article. This has not been previously done for a Eurovision article, though they are also used in other high profile areas such as Barack Obama and global warming.
There has been persistent problems on Anna Vissi related articles with a disruptive IP hopping editor making repeated sweeping and unwanted changes to the articles despite being asked to stop. An account that displayed similar behaviour, JORJKIE.AV (talk·contribs), has now been blocked indefinitely and some pages have had to be semi-protected for long periods.
On 7 February 2010 a draw was held to decide which semi-final of the 2010 Eurovision Song Contest each country will participate in. The draw also decided, for countries qualified straight to the final, which semi-final they will vote in.
Notable confirmed changes to the format of the Eurovision Song Contest this year include that the semi-finals will now be divided into two halves, and that voting will be open throughout each show rather than only after all entries have preformed.
It was announced in January 2010 that the Third Eurovision Dance Contest has been postponed a second time. It was originally due to be held in 2009, but was then postponed till 2010, and may now not happen at all, at least within the next two years. The EBU have justified the decision by saying there has been a decline in the popularity of TV dance shows.
Do you have news for the next issue? Submit it here!
Innocent Heart was nominated for deletion at AfD and was deleted. Due to disruption the page was also protected to prevent re-creation. Users may consult an administrator or make a nomination at deletion review if they wish to make a good faith attempt at re-writing the article.
Je ne sais quoi (song) was nominated for deletion at AfD and kept. The participation of WikiProject Eurovision members was commented on during the discussion.
Welcome to the sixteenth edition of the WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter!
We're in full swing now! Although the Eurovision Song Contest is around 2 months away, this is probably one of the busiest times of the year for the WikiProject, with a whole load of semi-finals, quarter finals, heats as well as national finals to see who the country chooses to represent them at this years Eurovision Song Contest.
We now know which of the 35 countries will vote and perform in which semi-final. With the 'Big Four' and host country, Germany and Spain voting in the first semi-final and France, Norway and the United Kingdom in the second semi-final.
With 22 out of the 39 countries decided, we are just about half way through, with a whole lot more to come!
So when creating new articles about a performer or song, please remember to add sources either from Eurovision.tv, ESCToday or other reliable sources.
Please get involved, and contribute anything to articles whether it's a little spelling mistake or a whole new paragraph, and remember to look at the talk pages and have your say on any discussions that may be present.
The project currently has 80 members, with two joining and two leaving in January and February. One user left due to retirement, another due to being blocked indefinitely.
Want to invite new members? Place our invitation template on the talk page of anyone you would like to invite to our project.
New Members
We would like to welcome the new members who joined in January and February (by date joined):
If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by xenobot13:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Interesting
Hello :) You seem to be an interesting person - Russian name, native English and French speaker, living in Morocco :) Kubek15TCS14:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Alexandr,
I have add the page of my label, The page corresponds with terms and conditions of wikipedia, and there are not spam or smth that can make a problem to terms and conditions of Wikipedia.
Dear Alexandr, now again I have a problem when I try to add a website address. When I have add it , the page is under the delete problem. Where in your conditions are wrote that the owner of information cant add his website. If there are some note, I show you more than 5000 pages with 2-3 sentences and with many web site names and spams...
You already break your rights and break my rights as a user and a owner of information, read it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morozzz22 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering what the next step should be now that all the principles have posted an Evidence section. I think most of us haven't done this before, so maybe a hint on what to do next is in order? :) I mean, we could keep responding to each others' responses forever (oh god, it really could go on forever), but I don't know how productive that is. BOZ (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Next stage in the case is the workshop, where principles, findings of fact, remedies and enforcement are proposed and discussed. You can take a look at any previous workshop to give you an idea of how it works; this is how it looked on the previous case I clerked. If you need any advice, let me know. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
You too are not only permitted but encouraged to post on the workshop page as you have indeed done so, absolutely nothing wrong there. My post (which went to everyone involved in the case) was to ask people to wrap up evidence as the drafting arb wants to start working on the workshop phase, and if people continue posting evidence, that makes things somewhat difficult. So absolutely no worries about you starting on the workshop phase, infact rather the contrary ;) -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Merely doing your job might seem to be a mere requirement rather than an accomplishment, at least in the ideal or theoretical sense. In practice, it's a lot more than have been done with regards to Asgardian over the course of the past three years, and in doing so, you've vindicated my faith, at least somewhat, in the system. It's still far from perfect, and needs a lot of improvement, but it's still gratifying to finally find a group of people who weren't taken in by his snake oil. Thanks again.
And btw, I'm surprised to hear that you aren't an administrator. I would've assumed that admin status was a prerequisite for being an arbitrator. Do you have any aspirations to being an admin? Nightscream (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
References
Hi. There's something I've been wondering about on several occasions that perhaps you can enlighten me on. How is one supposed to reference simple facts that are so obvious there's simply no sources to be had? Example, and reason why I address you with this, is the article on the Grosser Wannsee. Sure it would be nice to have a source for the mere facts. Ok, the overview part does mention a couple things that one might find a source for(lido, role in western Berlin, though not necessarily an english source), but other than that? Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Probably, but the matter of language still remains. I probably could add a reference to a german dictionary (Meyer's or Brockhaus come to mind), but online there's not much. Nothing, in fact. There's the occasional detail in the Berlin senate's equivalent of a list of historic places (gives the architect of the Strandbad) or on the homepage of the Strandbad, but other than that, nil. I could, once I've got the time, check the local or the university's library, but still - german. Regards, for now, --G-41614 (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Alexandr, thanks for the Talk comment. I don't need assistance with referencing - I just needed someone to reinforce with me the need and requirement to do it. I will be more diligent with this in the future. Aspirex (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
What are you doing?
As confusing at the TM Arbcom may be, you are making things worse by reordering comments into what I assume you genuinely believe to be the "right" places, but at the expense of putting them into the wrong places and making it impossible for anyone to actually follow the discussion. Your first edit is a case in point:
In response to a comment that MUM can't monitor the usage of its network, I posted a comment that MUM blocks access to websites critical of TM, citing sources which claim that it the case. 21:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Olive responded that she checked with MUM, and they told her that it wasn't true. 17:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC) You've now moved olive's response, so that it is impossible for anyone to tell what point of mine she is actually responding to.
[15]
While I'm sure this is all well-intentioned, I'd suggest that you (i) stop now and (ii) revert your recent handiwork. Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I've self-reverted so that the previous chronological order, which whilst incorrectly presented, can be more easily followed. As a reminder for the future though, all comments from Involved parties should go in the appropriate section, and comments from Other parties in the section dedicated to that. It's not always ideal, however that is how Evidence and Workshop pages must be presented. If I have time, I might try and reorganise the page, although at this late stage it's a case of closing the stable door after horse has bolted. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand your point that the various editors who contributed to that discussion, including me, didn't do it "right", and that the format ended up looking more like a talk page than an ArbCom Workshop. But, as you say, it is probably too late to fix. There are literally hundreds of comments that are in the "wrong" places. It's probably pointless to fix it, appearances aside. A better analogy may involve rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Fladrif (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I am currently suspended from the Account Creation Interface for being inactive for 45 days. I was asked to contact a tool admin if I wished to come back and it would appear that you are an tool admin. Would it be possible for me to become "unsuspended"? Andrewmc12317:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help in clerking the Alastair Haines 2 and other cases.
When an editor makes, or wishes to make, a statement after a case has been opened, it is generally best that the statement be moved to the case talkpage, rather than removed altogether. This gives the arbitrators still have an opportunity to review it and is also more user-friendly to editors who aren't familiar with the complicated nuances of the arbitration process.
OK, I thought about moving it myself, then when I saw the text in the big green box
This case is currently open; as such, no changes to this page should be made. Any additions should be reverted: if you have evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider, post it at the evidence page.
I reverted per instructions. That said, I left a note on the editor's talkpage explaining what I had done and suggested that the statement be moved to the evidence page and that he or she could also comment on the workshop page. The editor took my advice and made a statement on the evidence page. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The wording in the box does not represent the best practice in my opinion. Maybe we should have a discussion on the clerks list and decide collectively what the best way to handle these things is. Meanwhile, in this case I'm glad the editor found the right way, with your help, toward getting his point of view expressed to us. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help in moving the comments to the correct location. I apologize for the inconvenience. This entire process has been a learning curve for me (again).EGMichaels (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I have reactivated your account. Before you deal with any requests, please ensure that you reread the documentation thoroughly as there have been a number of changes since you last used the tool. Please also note that there is now a zero tolerance policy on mishandled requests, and that failure to assess correctly will result in suspension. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. A few months ago, I requested an account for the account creation interface. My request was politely declined, and was told that I needed some more experience and to contact an ACC administrator to reapply in one or two months. I feel I have gained more experience, actively editing for this time, and would therefore like to re-request an account on the interface. Thank you very much. -- EdTristtalkcontribs23:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your continued interest in helping create accounts for the English Wikipedia. After reviewing your reapplication I have approved your request so welcome to the team. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guidethoroughly to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on IRC where a bot informs us when new account requests come in and to get any advice on requests as well as the mailing list. Please note that we have implemented a policy of zero tolerance on mishandled requests, and that failure to assess correctly will result in suspension.
Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day (a day being from 0:00 UTC to 23:59 UTC), although you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked "Account Creator Needed". However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM.
Please keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse will result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Phantomsteve would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Phantomsteve to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AlexandrDmitri. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
I have created the RfA - AGK will add his co-nom when he's online tonight. If you answer the three standard questions, then when everyone is happy with it, I'll just ask you to sign it formally to accept the nomination, and then I'll transclude it - all I can say is good luck! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I've written my statement and pasted it under Steve's, so we're good to go. Once you've signed your acceptance, transclude when you're ready and we'll get the ball rolling. Best of luck! AGK00:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
i hereby award you this barnstar of bacon for your tireless efforts and research. when others might concede to the apparent futility you find a way to succeed. ... take the deviled eggs i am delirious & lost ☯ ~нuɢѕ~ and i support this message. Proclaimed at 08:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
the account creation barnstar
for your being of aid to so many people (987 & counting) seeking an account and for your mentoring new users as they join the project i hereby present you with this barnstar for your wonderful contributions to the account creation project. i am delirious & lost ☯ ~нuɢѕ~ and i support this message. Proclaimed at 08:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't asking so much if it was appropriate, since I was pretty sure it was, as your opinion on the venue chosen for the report. Since malice wasn't involved, was AIV appropriate?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if it wasn't clear, would you like me to make my reply more explicit? AIV is for "obvious and persistent vandals and spammers" and in my opinion this user meets the requirement of WP:VANDALISM - "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". In Q7 I was trying to point out that edit warring is never considered vandalism and as such should be reported on the appropriate board, and that a complex case should be discussed, whereas this was a simple case which falls in the realms of vandalism, albeit by inserting copyright material. Yes, there is a specific board for copyright violations, but there's no need to be overly burocratic and given the repeated insertion of material that compromises the integrity of Wikipedia, AIV is appropriate. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, that what I was looking for when I asked the question. :-) You can clarify it on the RFA page if you like, but I'm satisfied. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Pre-crat closure congrats
Well, we're waiting for a free 'crat to close the RfA and confirm it, but standing at 98/9/2, I'm going to assume that there won't be another 34 opposes before it is closed, so I'm going to say congratulations, AlexandrDmitri... well-deserved (even if I'm bound to think that as your co-nominator!)
Thank you PS both for your kind words and for co-nominating me. I have to dash off to culinary school right now, and won't be back until around 15:00 UTC when I will take the time to thank all of my supporters. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
They lied when they said it wasn't a trophy...here it is!
On passing the Rfa. You may be tired after all the work, so grab a cookie:
Acather96 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}}!
Incase your still hungry
Acather96 (talk) has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!
Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
and you could be vegetarian
Acather96 has given you a lollipop! This horrible pun and delicious candy promotes WikiLove and tells the world how low you will stoop for the sake of humor. Spread WikiLove by giving someone else a lollipop, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the unrelenting joy of lollipops by adding {{subst:Lollipop}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
I generally give them a softblock (if they have only edited the one article) on the theory that they might decide to contribute more productively under another account. Daniel Case (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Correct, although I prefer {{uw-ublock}} if all they've done is create an article on the company, since I don't really consider that spamming. You can do this automatically via the "softblock" and "spamblock" links from the UAA reports. Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear Dmitri (is this right?) I am Andrew18504. Writing to You because there is an error, which should be obvious to any Russian speaker: it's in Soviet history - Golodomor (extermination by starvation); Holodomor (extermination by cold). So far the error is there and my suggestion to correct it was answered by a reference to Czech language - irrelevant... Could You make it Golodomor? Thank You. P. S. So far it is wrong in both Russian and Ukrainian (I know both). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew18504 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear AlexandrDmitri,
I am writing to complain about you deleting my article that me and my friend have spent two days working on. I have two reasons to support my case.
After reading about types of vandalism on wikipedia, I understand that it may come across that it was a form of silly vandalism but in my eyes and many others it was simply a form of unintentional nonsense. Which is clearly stated here that I have copyed and pasted from your artcile on vandalism:While intentionally adding nonsense to a page is a form of vandalism, sometimes honest editors may not have expressed themselves correctly.
I feel that I was just expressing myself about "Nigel".
My other case is that I am starting a pettition to bring back the article.
There are so many places where you can write about Sir Nigel Pencilcase for free, such as on a blog that you can set up yourself in a few minutes. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not one of those places, as it is an encyclopaedia, where "unintentional nonsense" is not hosted. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
If by "him" you mean the article on Gregory Onision, please take a few minutes to read the explanations above. If you mean another article that I have deleted, please could you specify and I will reply. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to the clubhell clean-up duty! You like doing dishes, right? Comes with the job, both this one and yours! ~ Amory(u • t • c)13:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Anonymous Dissident for closing the RfA, Wifione, Sonia, Bejinhan, NerdyScienceDude for the kind words, Sidonuke for updating my userpage, Phantomsteve and AGK for nominating me, and Amory for volunteering me as the plongeur-- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Did you spot the appalling error in the message I left? I only realised after I had left it on around thirty users' pages :s Ho hum, I'll leave the writing up to you and help out in the administrative areas I mentioned. On a related note, I particularly liked the message I got when I was editing your talkpage. Do you have any objection if I plagiarise horribly some of the content? Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Not enough supports! I was rather hoping you would reach a 100 supports, but the important thing is that the RfA was successful, so congratulations for that. Use the tools well! Camaron · Christopher ·talk16:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Camaron, I look forward to working with you in the very near future with the Eurovision Song Contest 2010 as well as the Eurovision Song Contest 2011; is it really that time of the year already? Better to have found the block-evader than me hit an arbitrary 100 votes Rlevse; the good of the English Wikipedia comes before the individual interests of my RfA. Dwayne, thank you as well, permit me to bow humbly and thank everyone for their confidence in me. Thank you Mlpearc for the utensils necessary to fulfil my duties; I might borrow them for the house as whilst watering the garden yesterday I managed to bring half of the garden inside… Finally, thank you Acather for the food; Friday is the one day of the week that I allow myself a homemade, relatively healthy cheeseburger so two in one week is pure gluttony on my part. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
i have done pettition do save sir nigel pencilcase i have 183 signiches on it so i really wont you to put it back and say your sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovesugar14 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
just to let you know my friend was typing that not me i actually have quite a few signutures and i'm sending to wikipedia head office in the post so they can probably pass it onto you. p.s i have sent lady gaga a letter asking if she could sign the pettition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovesugar14 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
wtf phantomsteve why do you have to be a patronisong dick. get a life get swiftcover ps who the hell is jimbo jones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.206.26 (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
wtf phantomsteve
sorry i meant jimbo wales i just look him up, do you really know gordon brown nick clegg and david cameron???????????????? ps ask my friends if i dont like you you'll know it show shut your mouth and you dont really want to have an argument with an 11 year old girl to you?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.206.26 (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand why you would mark my contribution as vandalism. Everything stated in this work in progress was factual; describing my fantastic life and furthermore it can be verified. You are a pretty lazy editor, just to press the delete key on anything that you disagree with.
I'm not up to speed about this issue and I'm an extremely new admin. Do you have an example of the problem? You might also like to take it to WP:AIV as another admin more up to date with the problem may deal with it before I get a grasp of the issue. Regards Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, somebody else did the block, so never mind about 202.162.216.230. Let's focus on now-blocked user HerbEA1 (talk·contribs), who seems to be a sockpuppet of HerbEA (talk·contribs) which you blocked earlier. Now he's using his own talk page for his further taunts and shenenanigans. Earlier, he abetted on the 202.162.216.230's vandalism and calling me a (sorry if I'll be saying this) "dickhead" on my talkpage. Just a heads up. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs09:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Prolog got there before I could do anything and seems to have the situation under control for now. Let me know if there are any more problems. I'll still look at the IP to get a feel for the situation. Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was hoping I could trouble you to temporarily restore this talk page and move its contents to the creator's talk page. I listed the article for speedy deletion, but I left some advice for the creator on the talk page and I don't think he had chance to read it before the page was deleted. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]09:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
how is todd mumford not a significant or important person. you didnt even read the article, or you would have seen why he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmm8796 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You've now taken the side of those who slander people online and post their telephone numbers and addresses. I hope you enjoy the company. TheGoodLocust (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Advice
Hi
Sorry to bother you :), I was wondering if you could take a quick look at User:WaterMusic and tell me if the description/advertisment of the company on the user page is acceptable? Just wanted to let an admin know incase this should be dealt with. I noticed the account on ACC was created http://toolserver.org/~acc/acc.php?action=zoom&id=48544 , and not sure if it should have been at all to be honest.
I have blocked the user as it clearly violates the username policy. Unfortunately, despite all of our volunteers' best efforts, accounts like this slip though, though they are picked up quickly enough. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Regards Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you!
AlexandrDmitri - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.
I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.
Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.
Poking around, I haven't been able to find links to old arbitration cases. I'd like to take a look at the kinds of remedies that are imposed, and also samples of the types of evidence and workshop contributions that are considered most helpful to the arbitrators. Can you recall any examples of particularly well-handled cases? If not, no worries—the guide offers good advice. Thanks for your help. Rvcx (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The complete list of all Arbitration requests that have been completed can be found here. I'm not sure what would qualify as a "well-handled" case and every case is very different, so it's hard to pick one out of the hat that resembles this one. I'd avoid something like the Transcendental Movement case (as it is huge and would take forever to unwravel), and anyone where parties are named in the title (because the case is focused on looking into the behaviour of one or more editors). Maybe as an example you'd like to look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad_movement though obviously there are limits to how the two cases can be compared.
If you have any questions, User:AGK will be the main clerk on this case with User:MBK004 helping. This is MBK004's first case as a trainee, and so might be less at ease with answering questions, although I can't obviously speak on his behalf. If you don't get a reply from either (both are somewhat occupied today, hence me opening on their behalf), I can help. Regards Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Race and intelligence
Thanks for the notification concerning this ArbCom case. Since this is a case concerning the editing of articles on "race and intelligence" and I have never, to my knowledge, edited any of these articles, I still don't see how I am an "involved" party in the case. My connection is purely through commentary on AN/I -- and if that's th standard for "involvement", there should be scores of others listed. A number of arbs have said that the involved list needs trimming, and (in my mind at least), mine is the most egregious name on the list. How do I go about getting my name removed from the involved list? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I have to admit that I hesitated before including one or two people in the "involved parties" section. I'll ping Coren, the drafting Arb, and discuss removing you from the list of involved parties. I erred on the side of caution by placing you in the list because once a case has started it is easier to remove than to add someone. Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Борис Павлович Демидович (Boris Pavlovic Demidovich)
I saw you are very busy, but clicking on your user page and reading about you, I decided to submit to your attention a new article I created, now parked in a subpage of mine User:Theirrulez/Boris Demidovich about a Russian/Belarusian very popular contemporary mathemetician, Boris Pavlovic Demidovich. Text was part written by me, and part automatically translated from Russian. If you are interested, if you would like, and, of course, if you have time, I'll be glad and proud whenever you can take a look to copy-edit it a little, or just to tell me your opinion about it.
Sorry, I misunderstood your issue. One comment and a suggestion:
The manual of style indicates that templates can (my emphasis) be used. They are not obligatory.
If you have a problem with an individual user then you can follow the dispute resolution process. The Arbitration Commmittee is the last step in dispute resolution, not the first.
Alexandr, Thanks for your clarifications. Conversion templates prevent anything from small dicrepencies to major "lulus" (foul-ups) such as I found in ship#oil spills (see the revision history). As such their use should be mandatory. Regards, Peter HornUser talk20:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I am interested in making an account on the above interface. Unfortunately my account is <60 days old and so is not valid for use there. I was wondering if there was a way to bypass the rule. If not I am probably going to be able to wait another 22 or so days... Let me know Mr. R00tLeave me a Message23:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that you wait a while before applying and build up some more experience. Looking at your contributions, you seem to do predominantly vandalism reverting, which is naturally a very useful thing to do in order to keep Wikipedia free of it. We do like to see some knowledge of policies, in particular the WP:USERNAME policy as that is one area that is important for team members. Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, AlexandrDmitri. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. monosock03:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know i sent a pettitin to wikipedia 3 weeks ago but you have not replied!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! p.s nigel is now married to Lady Nigella Pencilcase nee Borris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovesugar14 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
nigel pencilcase
i am very angry that you have not replied to my pettition i sent 3 weeks ago!!! :( if you want i can send another one!! from a very angry person!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovesugar14 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where you sent the petition, but if you sent it to the Wikimedia Foundation their staff members will answer it. They will not forward it on to me, as I am merely a volunteer and do not work for the WMF. I have therefore neither seen it nor can reply to it. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the way i have been mean to you in the past. Its just that i sent the pettiton with 50 signitures 4 weeks ago! I have had no reply i live in england and i sent it to wikipeida foundation's office in florida!! do you think i could get a reply if so please tell me by email: phoebesavesnigel@gmail.com many thanks
ps im again very sorry for the way i behaved :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovesugar14 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
eep but a website told the address in florida should i send the letter to the offices in san franciso then?? thanks for the info cheers!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovesugar14 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
