This is an archive of past discussions with User:HelloAnnyong. 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.
Thank you for your intervention on the Kim Schmitz Wikipedia profile, which contributed to the removal of one section about MegaUpload, that was based on unsubstantiated rumour.
Despite this step forward, 78.34.4.52 persists in refusing to modify any other details, although I have gone to great lengths to review every single section of the profile and addressed the minor concerns that he has raised one-by-one. All of this is clearly documented on the Discussion page.
My interest is in improving the profile, by adding additional information, improving the chronological order of events and generally moving towards a higher standard. Over recent weeks, I have worked hard to establish 'good faith' in the discussions about the profile, by addressing each issue one at a time. By contrast 78.34.4.52 says "Now we need some people who help to rebuild the part about his lifestyle and the story of data protect. --01:06, 9 March 2009", but responds with extreme negativity when his concerns have been repeatedly addressed; "I can't see any improvement there. Since you can't point out any substantial flaws of the current version, there is simply no need for a rewrite. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)".
He chooses to turn down the negotiated version point blank, without even making a counter proposal !
In my humble opinion, this is a clear case of clever filibustering to avoid moving forward towards any further editorial improvement - clearly an unacceptable situation, when the article is currently rated only 'Start Class', according to Wikipedia's guidelines.
This is actually a very good example how to draft this section. I will propose a newly drafted version. In the meanwhile, I would like to ask Jaan Pärn to take a break from Sofia Rotaru article and not to edit unilaterally. All the efforts put by him regarding Sofia Rotaru article seem to be distructive rather than constructive on Wikipedia. Just have a look, how he stalks me on other articles and how he tries to delete now the music files in the article on Sofia Rotaru...--Rubikonchik (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The material I added to the Sofia Rotaru#Legacy section was copied from the existing body of text in Sofia Rotaru#1986–1989: New wave - Europop and hard rock, re-written into a much more neutral prose. I'm trying to avoid deleting portions of the current article (which is in a shape of a poorly written fan site, I agree completely), and to move and re-write them instead. This may look confusing, I agree, but all of the peacockery was already there before me. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
While you're at it, we have one more situation involving two well-known guys and the income of a well-known songstress. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Your signature
Hi. I really love your signature color and setup, so I hope you dont mind my borrowing it, albeit in a slightly different manner ;). Just thought I'd ask. Thanks, Onopearls(Let's Chat!)06:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if we got off to a wrong start, as thats what it feels like. As you can probably tell, I'm the one who butted heads with you on the Mepham High School page. I thought what I was doing then was how it was supposed to be done, but after sleeping on it back then I realized that I was wrong, or if not wrong, Ignorant. Why would I presume to know more about editing then you when it is obviously something that you do. Because of that, I stepped down and let the article go to rest. Earlier today though, I came across that second article. After reading it, I once again felt like it was notable to add Belger to wikipedia, so I took the advise you originally gave me, registered, and published a page. I wasn't really that talented at formating it correctly, so luckily another editor fixed up the article. I saw that you added an issue box (I don't know the proper name) and I wanted to see what was wrong with the article and if we could work it out. I just wanted a particularly noteworthy runner to be recognized. You could completely ignore this (a great factor of the age of the internet) but I want a chance to learn about whats wrong, in order to correct my mistakes.
(I guess I'll just go by the issue bullets)
-I have the San Diego article which is very precise and detailed about his life. There is also the Sports Illustrated article which is older, describing the college career. Then there is the third article about his daughter that just mentions him (yet it verifies the point about his daughter also running)I looked up the pages about sources for a live subject biography. I understand that it wants to make sure that things are done correctly about the subject. The San Diego article seems to portray his figure very well. It is an article directly about him, and the author interviewed Belger. In what I wrote in the article I tried to keep to the San Diego resource as best as I could, which is the most accurate published information about Belger that I could find. The next issue you listed relates to this also.
-I don't think any of the claims were unverified. Everything I placed in the article was found in one of the sources with the exception of a single fact, the name of his high school coach, Paul Limmer. Limmer is a well known coach on Long Island. I don't know his exact stats, but his teams have won many state and national titles at mepham high school, but thats all besides the point. Aside from that name, I believe that everything else written was found in one of the resources.
One of the major issues with writing about a track figure is that Track and Field is not a heavily covered sport by the media. If you turn on ESPN not during the Olympics, you will not see anything about runners. That doesn't mean though that running is not noteworthy, it just doesn't gain as much attention as other sports. Running is an enormous high school and college sport, and amateur runners can be found anywhere. As a result of this lack of attention, there are not as many articles written out there about runners. Most of what is discussed about running is just that, discussed. People within the running community talk with one another about running news. I can give other sources about Belger, but they are in blogs and other postings that I suppose don't meet wikipedia's standards. That does not make what is achieved though any less notable. It just does not gain many media articles. That in a way makes Belger even more notable, as for whatever the reason, he was worth writing articles about, however few, there are more about him then others. I know its a problem, and I don't know if it can be resolved, but as an encyclopedia, perhaps it is Wikipedia's job to put this information together, so it is more approachable.
-As for the last point, well, there is not really anything I can do, can I? How can I prove to you who I am and whether I have a conflict of interest or not? I can't prove it. I will tell you my relation to this article, and you can decide if there is a conflict or not.
I am a very recent alumni from Mepham's track team. I have never met Belger, nor have I ever seen him. I know about his running from a variety of coaches and the articles that I cited. I am a passionate runner and wish to further the running community. I suppose I do have a point of interest in that I respect what he accomplished. Other then that, I have no relation to Mark Belger at all.
There are my explanations about the issues that you provided. I just want to make the article functional to all of the necessary standards of wikipedia. I just want to provide an informative article about a runner who has set world records and made great accomplishments and to do so, I need your help. --Djmeyers2 (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
So okay, a bunch of stuff. Your logic on Belger being "even more notable" because he's mentioned in blogs is fallacious. Blogs don't make you notable on Wikipedia; articles from reliable sources do. So to that end, yes, you are right that blogs are unacceptable as sources. Having said that, I think you did a fairly admirable job on that article. I believe you fulfilled the criteria for its inclusion.
I just pulled off the COI tag, since it doesn't appear to be true. I just put it there since you wrote some things that seemed like only someone who personally knew him would write. As to the other tags: additional references are needed on the last paragraph in "Success in college," as well as stuff in the lead. The uncategorized tag on the bottom is because the article isn't categorized as anything yet. You should find some categories and add them - runners or Villanova alums or something. Finally, the OR tag is for your tone. Example: "He received many accolades throughout high school" - what does 'many' mean? By whose standard?
Thank you for your help. I will work on your suggestions and fix it up. As for the point I was trying to make about his notability, I over complicated my explanation. What I wanted to say was that just for the fact there are any articles about him at all (in sports illustrated and the san diego one) show that there was something notable about him in the first place, but that doesn't really get us anywhere pragmatically. I just wanted to make that point. I'll keep looking for more details about the actual races he ran and awards he won, but at least its a start. Thanks again. --Djmeyers2 (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Please, help stopping the dispruptive editing of User:Erikupoeg on Wikipedia generally, and on the articles related to Sofia Rotaru in particular. I am ready to provide all the necessary sources. The way the aforementioned user is editing os clearly bad faithed to me, with all my wish to assume good faith. Just see his nominations for deletion of audio files and simultaneous creation of other audio files, see his lying while trying to support his "position", etc (as per already given links, talk pages and edit history pages)--Rubikonchik (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I recently added Armorize CodeSecure to the list of commercially available static code analysis tools. It was removed on the grounds that there was nothing to prove notability.
As this is simply a list of commercially available tools, I presume that proving that we compete in the same market space as the other listed tools in enough to prove "notability".
I have attached external press coverage citing Armorize Codesecure as a player in this space. I hope this is sufficient to keep us in this listing.
Did the included URLS count as notable? All I am trying to prove is that Codesecure has as much right to appear on a list of commercial tools as any of the other ones listed. I can create a page for Codesecure. I will write very matter of factly what the product does and what technology it is based on. I will 100% steer clear of marketing speak. If I do that and include the external references will that suffice. I am not trying to put corporate advertising in here. Just a statement that this tool fits into the same technology as the other tools listed. Linehanjt—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.250.42.178 (talk • contribs) 03:41, June 8, 2009
Sort of. The Reuters one isn't really acceptable since it's just the reproduction of a press release, which isn't really reliable. The Dark Reading one is probably okay. If you want it included in the list, then create an article. That's the best way to determine notability around here. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)03:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Jaan Parn didn't have that file deleted on their own. It was up for discussion, and a consensus was formed that it should have been deleted. I'm not going to say one way or the other if I think that file should have existed 'cause I don't know what it was. If you seriously want to fight this, try deletion review at WP:DRV. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. It's just funny how the consensus is being found with three "keep" and one "delete" (of the nominator anyway)... May be I don't know how to count or there are special counting rules on Wikipedia?--Rubikonchik (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
As for Jaan Pärn's latest "contributions", please have a look here. I was particularly surprprised by this phrase (yes, you may call it stalking and this will be absolutely right - it's my first time though) "...the Rotaru-related content on Wikipedia is a disgrace to Ukrainian pop music." Is this a proof of desire to improve?--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Was wondering why you're removing all the legitimate changes I made to T-Shirt Hell. Everything there is true. (One thing you commented "what does 'original comedy' even mean).
I'll explain it. T-Shirt Hell is not a website that sells t-shirts...it's a website that sells original t-shirts with comedy on them.
To explain even further...most lame t-shirt companies out there rip off other people's slogans. Just about all of them are NOT original. T-Shirt Hell only puts their own creations up. In fact, if you ever see one of their slogans anywhere else, it is a guaranteed rip off of T-Shirt Hell. They have serious integrity in this way.
I hope you're reconsider that, and all the other revisions you made, and if not, explain it to me so I understand.
I was reading through Talk:List of highest paid musicians in 2008 and finally made it to your comment. I'm no expert on Rotaru or WP:COATRACK, but after reading all the assorted pages, I'd definitely support an AfD if you wanted to put it up for one. It really seems the sensible route to take, especially given the lack of inline citations, non-English sources, and duplicated top 5 list. I think the best evidence, really, is that they took the actually "published" list of Top 10, synthesized her into the #2 spot, and left it as the top 11. Nice catch. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs)04:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
You know, I think you hit it exactly right. It is a synthesis of the sources given - I hadn't even thought of that. So good catch back at you, heh. :] — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)04:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It's intended to be more comprehensive than the portal, and better organized and easier to access than the categories. And it shares a standard format with the other country outlines for ease of comparison between countries.
It still needs work.
More information about outlines in general is available at WP:WPOOK.
Admin Graeme Bartlett has already been engaged on this dispute. I will get to this article in the weekend. The issue is not closed. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I've seen that you've reverted changes I've done on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis page. I must admit that I did not understand the reason why you reverted the changes. Can you please contact me marc dot lalo at mathworks dot com so we can discuss that.
No, I'm not going to send you an email. The reason I removed it is because it's really just linkspam. The product isn't notable enough on its own to have an article, and that page can't just turn into a place where everyone has links to outside products. See WP:EL for more on that. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)16:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
all right, that makes sense: I've made another try, without external links: I also need to create a page for that product: can you point me to a page which explains how to do that? (I'm a beginner in wikepedia as you may have guessed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.30.141.6 (talk • contribs) 10:03, June 29, 2009
SD started the spill-over overnight. He went to Anwar Wagdi and made him Syrian as we were still debating The Atrashes. My action on the Atrash page was in response. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Annyong: SD is reverting the Asmahan and Farid al-Atrash articles without consensus. He has made no arguments at all on Farid's Talk page during the "protection" period and has presented no evidence to challenge the information that has been on the aricle. Are you still involved? Please stop his reverts. Thanks, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
If you have a chance, do you think you could weigh in once more at Aisha? I've tried to strike up a compromise, which hopefully will solve the dispute.--Cúchullaint/c19:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for picking up where I somewhat left off as the third party in the dispute between SD and Arab Cowboy. It appears that you may have left them to their own at this point, but thanks for the attempt and effort anyways. Sancho20:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I've still got my eye on the page, but since both of them just got blocked for 24 hours for edit warring, there's not all that much I can do. I thought the RfC would help bring some other people into it, but no bites so far. Anyway, your input on that page is always welcome. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)21:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Your revert on the Asmahan Talk page is unconstructive. We had agreed to stop the warring and let the RfC take its course. SD's accusations here, here, and here, at least, are more than sufficient. Why do they need to be in the RfC? I do not have time to respond to his helucinations, but your inclusion of those accusations in the RfC further proves your bias on this topic and exacerbates the situation. Be more objective and constructive. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
But things can be rearranged and reorganized as you have personally done in the past. The accusations do not belong in the RfC. Take them elsewhere. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Rearranging comments into chronological order is an acceptable task. Moving people's comments from one talk page, especially from mainspace to userspace, to another is not. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)23:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Where do I make a complaint against you and SD for false accusation? lol. And, since you've mentioned that you are a white american male, Happy Independence Day. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. Instead of un-editing everything withiut any single source provided for the purposes thereof, let's take one section at a time, to start with - the lead. Please, kindly answer whether I should inspire from the lead of Mina (singer), where Jaan Pärn is actively involved, as a good example? Otherwise, pleas kindly provide your version of the lead for Sofia Rotaru for discussion.--Rubikonchik (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
If you'd say that you removed the information because it was not notable enough, I would not touch it. But you removed it claiming that it was an original research, and I reverted it because it was obviously wrong. This information is well known for many years, I saw it many variations in many sources for many years. As far as I know it comes directly from Craig Bartlett (I saw it in transcripts of online chats with him) and other people who either worked on the show or communicated with them. So it's neither research nor original. Hellerick (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Then find those actual sources and cite them. Either way, the tone of your section was highly inappropriate. No Wiki article should have text like "Nick, however, was adamant about the exclusivity clause, saying something like, "No exclusivity clause, no Hey Arnold"." And saying things like "(and will, no doubt, be another testament to Bartlett's Oregon roots)" is synthesis of sources. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)16:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
You should contact one of them admins that are handling the socpuppet pages and tell them that you have added info so they can take a look at it, I think you also have to ad a code letter for check user request. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
ok this is not going so good, can you please copy the text you have in your "signature" so i can experiment with that?--Supreme#Deliciousness[[User_talk:# Supreme Deliciousness|(hey!)]] 21:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
This website is not for commercial. It's just for data and information for the study!
Take a look at it! There is no AD in my web site!!
Especially, It will be very helpful for the Japanese and Koren users.
This website is not for commercial. It's just for data and information for the study!
Take a look at it! There is no AD in my web site!!
Especially, It will be very helpful for the Japanese and Koren users.
First, I wasn't the one who removed your links this time; someone else did. And you're right about those broken links, so I went through and removed them. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)04:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Sofia Rotaru one more time... ;-)
Hey Annyong,
Thank you very much for the indication of an example of introduction as per FA. It seems to work fine and I will gradually try to edit the whole article according the FA examples. However, as of today, some ongoing, already well discussed edits are being repeatedly pushed through:
2) User:Olahuskeeps deleting any reference to "Moldavian" and inserting everywhere instead "Romanian". The issue was also discussed on the talk page of Sofia Rotaru article in the very beginning. Independently from political connotation, Sofia Rotaru herself has never mentioned she was Romanian, nor that she spoke Romanian. The only term used by her personally as well as by all written sources regarding her always mention "Moldavian" as well. However, there are a couple of albums, where it is clearly written that some of the songs are performed in Moldavian and others in Romanian. That's how I construed the article, when referring to the languages of performance. As far as any other reference to the ethnicity - it is only Moldavian. User:Olahus has never provided a single citation where Sofia Rotaru considers herself as Romanian or saying that she speaks Romanian or saying that she comes from Romania. I can only add again, the only reference to Romanian appears in some of her albums (on the back cover where languages of songs are listed), and even when there is a reference to Romanian, there is also one to Moldavian on the same cover... For example: the Only for You album--Rubikonchik (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Blah. As to #1, I can't restore talk pages, as I am not an admin. And that article was deleted because it was synthesis of sources. You shouldn't readd that text into this article - it would be removed for the same reason. I'm not sure why that source was deleted, so I started a thread at Talk:Sofia Rotaru#Dubious source? to get some more info on it. I agree on the edit comment, and I left Erikupoeg a note about it. And I think that it was just a blanket revert to remove your reinsertion of the source, so I'll undo the Moldavian change and leave a note on the page about it. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)13:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you find removing maintenance tags without agreement as normal behaviour? What kind of reaction do you suggest? ? Because repeating the concern on the talk page over and over again is not working if the other side keeps silent on the talk pages and reverting on the articles. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
True enough. The fact is that the two of you keep going back and forth in edits, but don't discuss them. And I'm sure you're tired of this constant back and forth; I know I am. The problem is that you're both heavily involved in this one set of pages - that is, the ones around Rotaru - and you keep stepping on each other's toes on every little issue that comes up. We can't really ask for an RfC every time something happens, so I don't really know how to resolve this. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)14:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The issue with the revenues of Sofia Rotaru is a quite simple one and should not be confused with the article List of highest paid musicians in 2008per se. I undertstand and agree with the decision to delete List of highest paid musicians in 2008 as none of the sources cited Sofia Rotaru as second in the list and that Forbes' list itself was not cited by any other secondary source. The only reason why I was looking to restore its talk page, is that on it I have provided numerous links to the articles of most respectful sources citing clear unambiguous information about the revenues of Sofia Rotaru in 2008. All of this is just to spare the time (my time). If User:Erikupoeg keeps inserting the tag "dubious-discuss", by deleting my sources which clearly state the amount declared, I'll have to add ten or twenty references if necessary.--Rubikonchik (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted your last edit for the following reasons: 1) you have not provided any reasons to go back to User:Erikupoeg's last edit at all, 2) User:Erikupoeg's last edit is contentious as it pushes his own POV through with no sources to support his POV, 3) all of my edits are supported by reliable sources.--Rubikonchik (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you for the excellent re-write on both Neuberger and Central Park. As you can see from the history, I gave it my best shot but you really did a great job. Thank you. I'm still waiting to see what the community has to say about the merger. I asked for a WP:3O when I realized that I had done too much editing to be objective. Joe407 (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
(Original
title was Father and Son: both published authors,both FirstName Roy, both LastName Neuberger)
The person in my mirror told me that it's possible that User:HelloAnnyong did't know.
First, to appologize, especially if you did not know about the facts as described above.
Second, it's possible that you didn't know how the book's cover CAPITALIZED some of the words.
You may not be aware of the history of blacklists, and I'm not trying to lecture, but:
It's my opinion that, to put a respected book's title (as published by the author) on a blacklist is a very serious thing.
You called the capitilizing weird. It may seem so; someone obviously did not – not just because the book has been reprinted more than once or translated into other languages.
Art, and opinion about it, is an involved subject. On that, the father (Roy R.) is probably more expert.
As far as using American naming conventions as the standard (in many countries, this is not the case, and Wiki has a major section about cultural bias which I perused recently; it's worth reading, IMHO) . . . I'll admit that having an article named Lastname,FirstName may be confusing.
My intention in naming the Roy S. article was to minimize reader confusion, since those looking for the father's article and those looking for the son's article may not overlap much.
In short: My biggest objection is that you put the CAPS name of the book title, as published, on a BlackList. To repeat: that word has meaning.
Please undo your changes. Appology accepted in advance; the person in my mirror is not perfect either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dad7 (talk • contribs) 19:53, July 16, 2009
First, this message was posted on my user page, not my talk page. Second, watch your tone. I have sixty-four times as many edits as you, and I'm quite familiar with Wikipedia policy. I would be okay with moving the article to "Roy S. Neuberger" since it seems he is most commonly credited as such. I didn't put the caps name of the book on a 'blacklist' (whatever that means). There is a policy in place for naming of books. It's at WP:NC-BK. The proper name of the book, as given on every single page that lists it, is "From Central Park to Sinai." That's what we go by. And as a side note, if you read the naming conventions, you'll see that the subtitle of the book shouldn't be in the name of the article. But I suppose we'll wait to see how WP:RM plays out. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)20:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The following message is the "blacklist" to which I referred:
"From Central Park to Sinai: How I Found My Jewish Soul" cannot be moved to "From CENTRAL PARK to SINAI: How I Found My Jewish Soul", because the title "From CENTRAL PARK to SINAI: How I Found My Jewish Soul" is on the title blacklist. If you feel that this move is valid, please consider requesting the move first. Dad7 (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sofia Rotaru. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, with regard to the 3O request you recently removed - Removing Talk:Gay bathhouse#External links falling foul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, there was an RfC; 10 on the list - the RFC you noted was raised for an embedded list of bathhouse regulars within the gay bathhouse article. This had nothing to do with the rationale for keeping external links which was discussed in the comment before the RFC. Are you okay for the 3O to be added back on the list at WP:3O?—Teahot (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
How long does it take a long time to get a response from 3O? Can you tell if yet if WP:3O is the best place to even bring this sort of thing? I am not sure what to do since User:Ottava Rima, IMO, has stoped any pretense of listening to me or my comments. Carlaude:Talk18:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The issue is regarding Talk:The Age of Reason, right? From this edit, it looks like Ottava Rima removed your comment that seemed to be contributing to the discussion. So yes, that is unacceptable. I think you were somewhat justified in removing his comment here as being offtopic. I see someone readded your comment later. But no, as it doesn't really seem to be a content dispute, I don't really think this is an issue that's best suited for 3O. You may want to consider WP:WQA, but it seems like this has descended into such bad blood. I think taking it to WP:ANI might be a bit overkill. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)18:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, could you bother to actually read? Carlaude removed -my- comment via blanking the page. I warned him and reverted it. He should be glad that he was merely warned instead of blocked by an admin for vandalizing the page, as blanking other people's comments is vandalism. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for being civil. I gave my thoughts on what I can see from the history of that talk page. You two clearly have some issues that need sorting, and I gave my recommendations. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)19:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop by and commend you on your bravery in entering the IB article. Here in the United States, there is a lot of controversy over the programme. It has divided communities, turned neighbors against neighbors, parents against administrators and kids against kids. Regardless of my opinion on the programme, I have endeavored to contribute to the IB series verifiable N-POV sources to let readers know some of the facts about the IB organization that it really doesn't want the public to know. I was followed here by Tvor65 who vowed in another forum "to police my propaganda". There are several IB teachers working as editors on the pages - Cinchbug seems fair and reasonable, as does Ewen who has taken a leave of absence. However LaMome is clearly pushing a pro-IB POV and tag-teamed me on every addition I made to both the IBDP and DP articles with Tvor65. Truthkeeper confuses me - on the IBDP article he/she was a stickler for citations being an exact format, yet on the IB article, nary a care about it. TK left after incorrectly interpreting Uncle G's admonishment of LaMome for sarcasm and then returned. I bowed out, partially because of your siding with them on the placement of the Programmes, but more so because a girl can take just so much. Oh sure, LaMome and Tvor65 will talk and talk and talk about what they "think" should be in the article, but do they actually take the time to compose and cite entire sections? No. Don't you "wonder" what happened to the "History" section they and TK were pushing, and now all of a sudden it's on to IB for the gifted? I know, I know, "assume good faith", but I think you will soon see the deceitfulness of their feigned "neutrality" and their true agenda. I thought your restoration of the article was fair and reasonable. Of course they jumped in to concur with your work as they got their way on pushing the programmes up. I wanted you to know that I will be watching, but I won't comment or come back to edit unless/until the article becomes so blatent an advertisement for IB that I have no choice. Good luck, as I said, you are a brave soul. For a programme that is supposed to promote "world peace", there are an awful lot of very cruel people who stand behind it and ruin schools and lives to promote it. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Haha. It's not canvassing - he's got a right to speak up. But I'm curious, Observer - what in the current article is so pro-IB? The article needs to stay balanced. So while we certainly don't want to only say good things and ignore the bad, we should also not do the reverse. I'm fairly okay with the current way the article is. It says its basic mission and describes the organization and its programs, and then mentions its reception. What's so bad about that? — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)00:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong - nothing in the current article is so pro-IB ... YET! Wait until "they" think I'm away or not watching. I stated earlier that I felt you reconstructed the article in a fair and balanced manner. Just giving you a heads-up as someone who appears to be very neutral. Good work. ObserverNY (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
p.s. - Dontcha just love the way Tvor65 tells you to "pay no attention" to me? LOLOLOL! You might want to pay close attention to Tvor65. However, I would never be so bold as to order you to do so. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
User:Olahus
If you mean re-reverting his edits for you to avoid the 3rr, I can do that. If you mean discussion on the talk page, I'm not too keen to argue on the subject although I indeed support the idea that as ' Moldavian of Romanian?' is a serious question, it would take solid reference to change it either way. Before such material is presented, it should rest in the original form which was probably Moldavian. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
That's not what I asked for. I was asking the other users who have been active on that page to weigh in on the subject, just to make sure that I'm not arguing against consensus. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)14:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to get WP:Consensus to leave the International Baccalaureate article AS IS. The banner which stated the article was undergoing major reconstruction was removed by Truthkeeper. Without consensus to leave the article AS IS (with allowances for minor edits), I respectfully request the banner be replaced as it appears the entire page can be reformatted at anytime without any input. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
wbc
hi - i'm cool with you reverting my edit but can i ask why? check out the definitions of the words "church" and "cult" and tell me why this group are not the latter Kylemew—Preceding undated comment added 12:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC).
There have been battles on that page about whether or not they're a cult. Without any sort of reliable sources that really show that they are a cult, it's not a change that should be made lightly. Aside from your own beliefs and opinions of them, do you have any definitive proof that they are? — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)13:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thanks for your response - as for my own beliefs, i am an athiest and couldn't give a jot about peoples souls - why do you assume it is personal belief that caused me to make the change? i do however care about wikipedia and its principles which are being undermined by the wbc who are using the page like a personal blog outlining every single one of their activities - something you do not see on other protest groups' pages (cnd for eg). please do not make assumptions about peoples' beliefs unless they are explicit - thanks and sorry to nag. as for word usage and "proof" - try a dictionary - these people could easily be defined as a cult - they are outside mainstream society and they exploit their members by use of a charismatic leader - it is a mute point - yes - but by describing them as a cult we would put them off using our encyclopaedia to peddle their garbage - something that is discussed in several places here - i still maintain that the change should be made and want to know how this can be agreed by enough people for us to do so. Kylemew (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC).
I didn't mean your religious beliefs, I meant your beliefs as to what the group is and how to categorize them. And around here, it's not enough to say "oh, well, the dictionary defines a cult as x and that's what Westboro does so they're a cult." We have a set of guidelines to follow. One of them is WP:OR and WP:SYN - we don't allow for original research on here. We can only mention what is published by reliable sources. And the other thing is that we have to stay neutral - and you're showing your POV by saying that we "peddle their garbage." Yes, we may not like their message, but we have to treat them with neutrality, if nothing else. This can't just turn into a WBC-bashing session. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)14:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
i thought it was ok to be frank here - sorry - i had no intention of describing them like that on the page - honestly the only people who don't think they spout garbage are the hundred or so members - but never mind that - i have continued this conv. on the discussion page there - seems to make sense - thank you for entering the debate it is appreciated and i do think we are quibbling here - the wbc could easily be described as a "cult" or a "church" (my own pov is there ain't much difference) we should use whichever describes them most accurately - and that is a decision that can be reached by consensus - surely? thanks again and good to make your... Kylemew (talk—Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC).
Dollhouse (TV series)
I don't feel that mentioning a clear inspiration (an identically named corporation that provides human appliances) qualifies as "original research". The existence of R.U.R. is public knowledge, and relevant to the full enjoyment of the show. If you think it would be more helpful to include a note in some other section of the article, by all means do that; but don't simply revert something as "original research" that is nothing of the sort. That is neither helpful nor productive. — Jonas (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
No, it is original research. The existence of one thing and it having a similar name to something else does not mean that we can draw a connection between the two. It has never been stated as part of the show's canon that "The Rossum Corporation is a reference to RUR." If nothing else, you're synthesizing two distinct things and coming to a new conclusion that is not specifically stated. Remember, Wikipedia "does not publish original research or original thought." That's directly from WP:OR. Find a reliable source that states a connection, and then we'll talk about its inclusion. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)21:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You will note that WP:OR goes on to state that "(Original research or original thought) includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". I am not adding any unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, or ideas by simply linking to another Wikipedia article. Nor am I "combining material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (WP:SYN). Indeed, I am not reaching or promoting any conclusion. I am rather providing individuals reading the article with supplementary information, from which they can reach their own conclusions—which as I understand it is in fact the purpose of an encyclopedia. — Jonas (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
By creating a link, you are drawing a connection between the Rossum Corporation in the show, and the play RUR. I was sort of wrong in saying that it's OR; it's also unverifiable. Two people now have removed your addition of the link. I started a thread on the talk page if you want to discuss further. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)22:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Annyong, the text that you have just been removed was backed up by Asmahan's Secrets, p.85, according to NT's input. The secondary source, what SD and you call a blogspot, is actually a (at least) 4-volume book that is shown online in what seems to be a blog, but the original source is a not a blog. You removed properly referenced text and you are hereby asked to please reinstate it. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Hereby? Don't demand things from me. And just because the sentence is sourced doesn't mean that it's automatically worthy of inclusion. The fact is that it's still a really awkward sentence, and we shouldn't be comparing someone to someone else in the lead of the article. The lead is supposed to be about summarizing the person's life, not about comparison. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)14:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I gave you the courtesy to undo your edit yourself and I said "please". I did not want to engage you in an edit war. It is clear that you have neither changed your ways nor "started a new page" as you had claimed. You still just sit back, judge and criticize, and you throw yourself squarely into the lap of SD throughout. I cannot tell why you are taking this position, but you are clearly biased and your self-presentation as a neutral third opinion has been an affront to the process. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Eh. Your unhappiness is part of the DR process. Someone is always going to come out unhappy in the end. If you don't like my opinion, that's fine; there are other involved editors. And I didn't fully throw my support behind SD; I've criticized him several times, including his rather poor taste in signatures. And my opinion on the lead is based on my understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I was not and am not criticizing you as a person; this is purely a content dispute. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)21:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry but you are completely wrong about the tripel article. Silktork used only American sources and I used Belgian sourse. Tripel is NOT a pale ale and Witkap Pater was a dark beer and NOT a tripel. The Westmalle beer was NOT named a tripel in 1956. And the origin of the term is NOT unknown. The article may be better organised but it is completely inaccurate. And you find a wine shop in San Francisco, an American beer importer and amateur brewing organisations valid RS? More reliable than a Belgian expert? Wow! Mikebe (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The article went from three sources to fourteen. It pulls from at least half a dozen books, a number of which appear to be about Belgian beer. Another user, Peterdjones, also showed support for the current version. The fact is that you haven't really elicited your thoughts on the talk page; all you said was that the current version is factually inaccurate and that the old version used less sources than the current one. I urge you to discuss your concerns with SilkTork on the talk page there. If you still feel slighted, my advice to you is to get more people involved. Try an WP:RFC, or maybe post on WT:BEER (the talk page of the Beer Wikiproject) and ask for people to chime in. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)21:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
In the request for third opinion I specifically questioned whether the sources met RS. I also wrote that the editor misquoted from the two RS he did use. You seem to ignore both of those points, both in your original comments and here above. Secondly, the question is not how many sources, but how valid the sources are. Thirdly, so, if a book says "Belgian Beer" on the cover, that automatically makes it a valid source? You mention another user: is this a question of popularity or guidelines? And finally, you notice that Silktork did not respond to my initial complaint about the article (that was very helpful, wasn't it?), so why would you expect him to reply if I post something again? Mikebe (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The sources are gerneally excellent. The single most referenced source is [[Michael Jackson (beer writer])], who is probalby the single best known authority on the subject. I have been asking mikebe to clarify his objections on SilkTork's behalf and he has not been co-operating.1Z (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Uncle G provided good secondary sources that he told us to use. They are being deleted, but I'd used a direct quotation in one of the sentences, and would like to be given the time to reword the sentence, and add additional sources. Actually, honestly, I'd like the disruptive editing to stop. But, it's best for me to log out right now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems like you guys have been going on like this for... a very long time. To be honest, I'm involved in a few other pages that are pretty much the same thing, though the people on those articles don't edit every five seconds like you guys do. But I'll give it a look and see what's up. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)23:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm curious, are you American? Because your comment about the Sowell piece revealed your political bias, yet I do think despite your left-leanings, you have been relatively fair, but prone now and then to flip-flopping. Obama hasn't just been called a socialist, Obama IS a socialist. This is not even a debate at this point, the U.S. is becoming an Oligarchy. Even my 88 year old mother who voted for Obama finally sighed and said, "You were right. Obama is a Marxist". I'm working on my sign for a Tea Party this Thursday. The focus is protesting socialized medicine. Grandparents, parents, teenagers, this time, everyone I've spoken to said, "I'll be there!" Thomas Sowell is a very bright man and he is absolutely right about IB. Think about it, Chia Pets have been around for almost 30 years. Fad or high quality product? My personal favorite is http://www.chiaobama.com/. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Yes, I'm an American. And I'm not going to get into a political debate with you. As a Wikipedia editor, I know how to keep my politics and personal beliefs out of my edits. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)13:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, when you preface your comment with "Unfortunately, this (Sowell) does not appear to be an extreme POV", you did not keep your politics out of your comment. That is hardly neutral. ObserverNY (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I meant unfortunately for the user who made the previous comment. Also, you don't need to use straight HTML in your comments; three quotes will make something bold. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)15:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
If such is the case, I wonder why a 3rd Op editor is pandering to one POV when it was only necessary to assert that the citation was a valid source. If your use of the word "unfortunately" was only to indicate that "they" lost on that particular battle, it also shows lack of neutrality. The statement should not have been predicated with that word and to maintain your credibility, I respectfully suggest that you strike it from the talk page.ObserverNY (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
""He's so jealous and envious of Egypt, and has been the most childish and selfish individual I've ever had to deal with." - and this is why we have conflict."
Of course not, like the good puppet he is, he would never go against you.
Annyomg, and why haven't you reported his personal attacks against me and continued labelling of another user as a sock or meatpuppet, here, even after two investigations have proven you both wrong? You can go to the original authors of those statements for questions about personal attacks, not me.
Lol, those were not my words, Annyong. Read properly before issuing your silly warnings. I think you now owe me an apology. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Still they were not my words. I did not dig back at all. They were on my Talk page. I have not been following others' statements to SD since that date. In all honesty, I would not use words like these myself, but that's just because I'm a good guy and I do not ever assume that I am better than anyone else. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong!
You're my current go-to for 30s, but please let me know if you're busy.
I've been (slowly) copy editing Commedia dell'arte listed on the articles to be copyedited list. Embedded in the article is a description of characters in prose, and it turns out that each character has a separate article. I've been considering cutting the prose description of the characters and moving to each separate article. (Btw- lots of characters & lots of work!). Today the an editor tagged the article as needing a list. As it happens, I think the article has quite a lot of potential, and am not sure that the list is the path to take. Opinion? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Um, I think the way you combined those sections into one piece of prose is fine. One alternative might be to give each type its own sentence or clause - something like "Brighella, who is always looking to profit, ..." or something. I agree that a list would be kinda silly in this case. Still, well done on that page. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)04:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this. Got caught up with IB today and didn't get back to the Commedia del'arte article, but essentially agree with you that the cuts are too stark and characters need slight expansion. Appreciate the eyes. Thanks again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
HelloAnnyong - You asked why no action on this. Editors in the AN3 thread have been abusing one another quite freely. What is all that about? In messy situations when it is not clear who is right, there is not much for an admin to do besides protect the article. Since SOME progress is occurring, in spite of all the vituperation, full protection would seem excessive. This is not the traditional type of case where one or more blocks would be issued. Also, there seems to be a mediator on this article, and that mediator has not been heard from in the discussion. (I don't know if that person is even aware of it). Let me know if you (or the mediator) thinks that an article restriction would help, for example a 1RR rule. Certainly a WP:RFC would be logical, if people would agree to do it, and somebody would frame the question properly. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem is way past any of that sort of mediation. Both I and Diaa abdelmoneim have tried to mediate that article, but it's recently gone totally downhill. There was an RFC, but it didn't really go anywhere - and the two editors in question didn't really take any of the advice given. I don't really think that a restriction is going to help, either; that path has been taken before and it didn't help the issues at all. I've tried asking for help on various Wikiprojects but that never really panned out. And given that their fighting has spread to other articles, I don't see the issues being solved anytime soon. So how do you handle two really heavy edit warriors? Do you content block them? I don't really know... — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)02:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
What broke down now lately was that I followed the mediation process at the talkpage, and AC did not, he went on freely and changed the whole article, deleted several segments without going through the talkpage, this was against the mediation process, and now suddenly Diaa has accepted this and is not doing anything.. if there was any kind of justice at wikipedia, this would never have happened. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Ed, I'm thinking that I just want to step away from that article and its editors. It's really not worth the headache that it's causing me, between the complaints about how I disagreed with someone, the revert battles, and having to follow edits on multiple pages. I'd rather that article not turn into a free-for-all, but... — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)12:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the indication of an example of introduction as per FA. It seems to work fine and I will gradually try to edit the whole article according the FA examples. However, as of today, some ongoing, already well discussed edits are being repeatedly pushed through:
2) User:Olahuskeeps deleting any reference to "Moldavian" and inserting everywhere instead "Romanian". The issue was also discussed on the talk page of Sofia Rotaru article in the very beginning. Independently from political connotation, Sofia Rotaru herself has never mentioned she was Romanian, nor that she spoke Romanian. The only term used by her personally as well as by all written sources regarding her always mention "Moldavian" as well. However, there are a couple of albums, where it is clearly written that some of the songs are performed in Moldavian and others in Romanian. That's how I construed the article, when referring to the languages of performance. As far as any other reference to the ethnicity - it is only Moldavian. User:Olahus has never provided a single citation where Sofia Rotaru considers herself as Romanian or saying that she speaks Romanian or saying that she comes from Romania. I can only add again, the only reference to Romanian appears in some of her albums (on the back cover where languages of songs are listed), and even when there is a reference to Romanian, there is also one to Moldavian on the same cover... For example: the Only for You album--Rubikonchik (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Blah. As to #1, I can't restore talk pages, as I am not an admin. And that article was deleted because it was synthesis of sources. You shouldn't readd that text into this article - it would be removed for the same reason. I'm not sure why that source was deleted, so I started a thread at Talk:Sofia Rotaru#Dubious source? to get some more info on it. I agree on the edit comment, and I left Erikupoeg a note about it. And I think that it was just a blanket revert to remove your reinsertion of the source, so I'll undo the Moldavian change and leave a note on the page about it. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)13:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you find removing maintenance tags without agreement as normal behaviour? What kind of reaction do you suggest? ? Because repeating the concern on the talk page over and over again is not working if the other side keeps silent on the talk pages and reverting on the articles. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
True enough. The fact is that the two of you keep going back and forth in edits, but don't discuss them. And I'm sure you're tired of this constant back and forth; I know I am. The problem is that you're both heavily involved in this one set of pages - that is, the ones around Rotaru - and you keep stepping on each other's toes on every little issue that comes up. We can't really ask for an RfC every time something happens, so I don't really know how to resolve this. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)14:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The issue with the revenues of Sofia Rotaru is a quite simple one and should not be confused with the article List of highest paid musicians in 2008per se. I undertstand and agree with the decision to delete List of highest paid musicians in 2008 as none of the sources cited Sofia Rotaru as second in the list and that Forbes' list itself was not cited by any other secondary source. The only reason why I was looking to restore its talk page, is that on it I have provided numerous links to the articles of most respectful sources citing clear unambiguous information about the revenues of Sofia Rotaru in 2008. All of this is just to spare the time (my time). If User:Erikupoeg keeps inserting the tag "dubious-discuss", by deleting my sources which clearly state the amount declared, I'll have to add ten or twenty references if necessary.--Rubikonchik (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted your last edit for the following reasons: 1) you have not provided any reasons to go back to User:Erikupoeg's last edit at all, 2) User:Erikupoeg's last edit is contentious as it pushes his own POV through with no sources to support his POV, 3) all of my edits are supported by reliable sources.--Rubikonchik (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Um.. you're looking for WP:WQA. But as this is largely a content debate, I'm not sure they're going to do much more than warn him, if that. You're welcome to try, I suppose... — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)14:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:HelloAnnyong. 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.
