This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Can you please look over my translation of this article? There's a lot left that I didn't have time for. Obrigado. Muito obrigado. Cbdorsett16:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for stepping up and trying to control CobraGeek and other disruptive users.
CobraGeek has repeatedly violated Wiki's NPOV and three revert rule policies in an obvious attempt to put a biased spin on the Carolina-Clemson Rivalry article. He and other anonymous users (probably just him editing anonymously) have also removed relevant material from the article to maintain their slanted POV. Here was his excuse:
"We are trying to get this right. If you have constructive input, provide, don't just vandalize the content, it will just be restored to its original state. I can see how some would say that newspaper style content might sound editorial, but if it is factual it is going to stay if it has relevence. There is significant relevence in the most recent game in the series, including its short term implications (coaching records and bowl implications included)."
No one was vandalizing anything, it's pretty clear this user has a very obvious POV interest in this article and would not tolerate changes that attempted to neutralize this bias. Current coaching records and season results have zero bearing on the subject of the rivalry as a whole. In fact, neither the 2006 nor 2007 games are of any particular historical relevance in the series. It's fairly clear we are dealing with a user who is using Wiki as a way to gloat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user is demonstrating what appears to be genuine remorse on their talk page, and claims to no know about the 3RR. Given that I don't immediately see any evidence to the contrary, I'm going to unblock and let them know this is their last chance. Wanted you to know, since you were the blocking admin. - Philippe | Talk03:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ay, sorry about that. :( I haven't been very active lately, so I'm out of practice (I even forgot to check what edit I was rolling back earlier >_<). Give me a while and I'll get back to normal. ;) Thank you very much for pointing that out. · AndonicOTalk19:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user has abused his admin privileges in the past. He has been blocking users and protecting their talk pages because that user was editing his own talk page. Shiggity (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stamp
Thanks for the stamp, curious why you thought of me though? Cirt (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
Hrm, weird, it didn't come from you, it came from this user giving them out with your sig: Vatomanocu (talk·contribs). Now I'm really confused! Cirt (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Here's a stamp from the Faroe Islands for you! Stamps from the Faroe Islands somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Vatomanocu (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting pretty sick of this CobraGeek character. They have identified themselves as a Clemson University fan in the WikiProject College Football list and if you check their contribs I think it's quite clear there is an anti-USC agenda at work here. Clearly a user who regularly violates NPOV policy and no longer deserves the benefit of the good faith rule. I will be watching this users edits at all USC-related articles and will remove material that has obvious POV problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.37.65 (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bundle of axes
Hi, I commented on my talk page when you awarded it to me, but I just have to tell you incase you didn't see it. That is my all time favorite award I've ever received for anything on Wikipedia. I really want to offer my thank you for it. Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk06:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PeaceNT (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Cheers and happy editing!
PS. Article about Kurów is already on 246 languages and dialects. If your village/town/city isn't yet on PL Wikipedia, I can do article about it. Only you on PT and EN wiki, speak on Mirandese. Pietras1988 (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
E aí, tudo bom? Só por curiosidade: por que você 'boicota a Wikipédia em português'? (Bom, pelo menos é o que diz lá entre as suas userboxes...). Não que eu tenha lá muita simpatia pela Wikipédia em português, só curiosidade mesmo. Eumedemito (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
É... Seus argumentos têm sentido. Acho que é por esses mesmos motivos que quase nunca uso a Wikipédia em português. Estava tentando começar minha participação por lá, e a minha primeira reação foi exatamente a de querer proteger uma enciclopédia única para br/pt, logo depois de ver o embrião da nova "Wikipédia brasileira", o que, na minha opinião, era puro bairrismo. Aparentemente os participantes da discussão sobre esse assunto, como pode se imaginar, não são lá muito moderados, o que acaba deixando pouca margem para argumentação construtiva, não ajudando muito a definir minha opinião (especilmente considerando que a maior parte das reclamações era sobre detalhes ortográficos e sinônimos). Mas dois argumentos seus me convenceram: a dominância do pt-br e a falta geral de organização. Provavelmente tive a impressão de que quase não havia problemas em uma wp unificada justamente pelo fato da variante dominante ser a brasileira. Na verdade ainda acredito ser tecnicamente possível essa wp-pt unificada. O problema é que entra aí o fator da organização. Não sei como é em Portugal, mas o povo daqui é, no geral, notavelmente mal-organizado, não só na Wikipédia. E junta-se a isso a costumeira arrogância dos usuários mais ativos de computadores, o que só piora a situação. No fim das contas, acho que você está certo, e que a minha visão de um esforço coletivo de padronização é que é pouco realista. Mesmo assim ainda não tenho muita certeza se a minha idéia técnica não poderia ser de alguma utilidade, mesmo que em um contexto mais restrito. Eumedemito (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What concerns me too is that Guido reverted bold edits by other editors, then comes here screaming that there's an edit war on. Perhaps you could have a quick look at the recent exchange, and consider whether this was an edit war or not. I don't plan to revert Guido's latest edit without further discussion, and am waiting for consensus to build up on the talkpage. A couple of reverts is not the same as an edit war. JFW | T@lk00:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not abuse terminology to support your pov, and do not mix administrative concerns with your opinion on a topic. There is nothing 'bold' to repeatedly deleting a sourced, neutral section that was the recent result of constructive co-operation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, because I like to talk about it and discuss it, how come you're supporting Kosovo independence? Being a Belgrader for most of my life and a lifelong Yugoslav, it's hard for me to imagine discussing other countries' matters, especially when it comes to issues of national importance, but am always curious to see what drives people to get interested in matters of other countries, who then support ideologies of their own countries that give themselves the right to decide on the future of others. Are there any specific reasons you want independence for Kosovo? If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine too, as I said, I was just wondering... :) --GOD OF JUSTICE03:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering :) I didn't want to answer quickly right away, because I like to think about the arguments presented to me and fully take them into consideration when talking about issues that I'm interested in, so that's why I'm replying a little late :)
First of all, before I present my general opinion on the matter, I'd like to comment on some of the statements you have made. Concerning the "belief that people have the right to self determination. I'm against the concept of an immutable nation that is to occupy a portion of land forever even if people within its borders are not happy with it. I believe that when the people of a particular part of a country no longer wish to be a part of it, then it's their right to go free." I would like to say a few things. Throughout the 1990s, all the peoples of Yugoslavia were constantly being told by the international community of the importance of preserving internationally recognized borders. The borders of the "new" countries themselves that were "internationally recognized" were actually drawn up by the Communist government of Tito after World War II, with no vote, no referendum. However, we all accepted it and there was peace. Well... except in one region and that is Kosovo.
The reason for this is that after the war, Tito had closed the border and didn't allow the expelled Serbs to come back to their land. Why were the Serbs expelled? I'll let this quote speak for itself: "We should endeavor to ensure that the Serb population of Kosovo be – the area be cleansed of them and all Serbs who had been living there for centuries should be termed colonialists and sent to concentration camps in Albania. The Serb settlers should be killed." 1, 2 - Mustafa Kruja, the Prime Minister of Albania in 1942, in charge of occupied Kosovo. During the fascist occupation of Kosovo by Albanians, until August 1941 alone, over 10,000 Serbs were killed and between 80,000 and 100,000 Serbs were expelled, while roughly the same number of Albanians from Albania were brought to settle in these Serbian lands.3 Thus we have a large Albanian majority in the tiny province of Kosovo. I was very much in favor of the 1974 constitution, when Kosovo became an autonomous province, I thought that the tensions would end. However in a New York Times article published on July 12th 1982 (while Slobodan Milosevic was still an unknown banker) it is stated that "the exodus of Serbs is admittedly one of the main problems that the authorities have to contend with in Kosovo, an autonomous province of Yugoslavia inhabited largely by Albanians."4 Regarding the Albanians that want to separate from Yugoslavia, Becir Hoti, an executive secretary of the Communist Party of Kosovo stated that "the nationalists have a two-point platform […] first to establish what they call an ethnically clean Albanian republic and then the merger with Albania to form a greater Albania." 4
If my eyes had been closed up until the 1990s, I'm quite sure I'd be supporting Kosovo independence. Besides, I wouldn't have a reason to oppose it. Everybody claims that only Serbs want Kosovo in Serbia, I'm not a Serb and I want it in Serbia. Yes ethnic cleansing happened in 1998 and 1999, yes many thousand Albanians were killed, yes they were subject to oppression during the 1990s... I don't disagree to any of that. After all, the CIA declared the Kosovo Liberation Army a terrorist guerilla movement before the anti-Serbia propaganda started, how would there not be a conflict with the US supplying guns and the hard-line Milosevic needing to keep Kosovo in Serbia in order to stay in power. Richard Holebrook himself said that Milosevic was a fake nationalist, not a real one. Milosevic's aim was to stay in power, by any means necessary.
"It's understandable that they no longer wish to be a part of a country that caused so much damage to them, even if the rulers have changed." Yes, I totally understand why they don't like Serbia or want to be associated as Serbians. I have talked to many Albanians and they have explained their reasons to death to me. For a moment, lets put international law aside. Lets say that there is no UN Charter or Resolution 1244 or the Final Helsinki Act of 1975. I believe that there used to be 1.5 million Serbs living in Bosnia and 600,000 in Croatia, who were told that they can't live in their own entities. I believe that there was a large number of Croats who were told that they can't secede from Bosnia and unite with Croatia. I believe that there is a lot of Albanians in Macedonia who are told that they can't secede from Macedonia. It has been said that Kosovo is different because of the ethnic cleansing. Were Serbs not ethnically cleansed from Croatia in Operation Storm in 1995? Was there no ethnic cleansing in Bosnia? The term "ethnic cleansing" practically entered world dictionaries after the conflict in Bosnia. I believe it will be very hard to explain to the Serbs in Bosnia why Kosovo should have independence, and Republika Srpska not. To say that Republika Srpska can't run on it's own like Kosovo would be a very funny statement, considering that the people living in Kosovo haven't been paying taxes, electricity for 50 years, only paying telephone bills, while even today are run by the UN. And as far as ethnic cleansing goes, in Kosovo it was started by ethnic Albanians (I don't mean in WWII, but not in 1912 either... long, long ago).
"Despite being offered great autonomy by the current Serbian government, it's also understandable that Albanians don't see that as enough." This is true, but does anyone really ever consider why this is so? Think about it.. after World War II, after Croats killed Serbs, Serbs killed Croats, Albanians killed Serbs, everyone killing everyone, we all lived together for 50 years, and ask any non-nationalist whether life was good in Yugoslavia, they'll tell you it was the best years of their lives. Yes, it was a fictional economy, but the brotherhood and unity was real, Tito made foes into brothers and sisters. Why does it sound so impossible for Serbs and Albanians to kiss and make-up again? This won't happen until the US stops supporting separatism in Kosovo. I'm sure they have their reasons, which I won't get into right now.
"Finally, I don't think that Serbia has provided any good arguments for keeping Kosovo. And some stances by Serbia and the Serbians just ensured me that the Kosovar Albanians are right in demanding their own state. Stances such as resorting to Russia in order to retain Kosovo for a few more months is catastrophic for Serbia's image and its European prospects." Have you ever taken the time to visit some Serbian government websites on Kosovo, outlining the details of their proposed autonomy. I mean, really look at them, not just briefly read a line or two or listen to news reports on TV channels. I won't explain all of it now, it would take me a lot of time to do so. Secondly, I'm not happy with some stances the Serbian government is taking, especially some DSS (the party of Vojislav Kostunica) members mentioning military action when it comes to Kosovo, I know that nobody in Serbia, not even those who vote for the Radicals, want war again. They might say they do, because it makes them look like big shots and cool. Russia... I'm very hesitant to open my arms to Russia, all they're doing is using us to defy the US for God knows which reasons... And I'm just afraid that we won't pay the price for that. However, for now, Putin is defending my point of view, so I can't disagree.
"a majority of Serbs will put their nationalistic grip on Kosovo above their European aspirations." Mmmm, I don't think so. As I've said, we like to pretend to be big shots, even when we have no tricks up our sleves. But I do believe that Serbia can enter the EU with Kosovo as a part of Serbia, which really makes this whole status process questionable because there will be no borders in a few years, but the historic legacy will remain.
How feasible is it that Kosovo remains in Serbia? Kosovo won't be really independent, not for a long, long time. Serbia will never recognize it, because of Russia the UN will never recognize it, which makes me think why no one in the West has ever sat down and actually listened to what Serbia has to say, instead of pushing their pro-Albanian agenda since the late 1990s. Obviously there are higher political interests, some of them won't be revealed until I'm long dead (I haven't got too many years left in my pocket).. which really bugs me sometimes.. Eh, politics.. you'd think that one gets used to it after so many years... but no :)
1 Bogdanovic, Dimitrije. The Book on Kosovo. 1990. Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, 1985. page 2428.
2 Genfer, Der Kosovo-Konflikt, Munich: Wieser, 2000. page 158.
3 Krizman, Serge. Massacre of the innocent Serbian population, committed in Yugoslavia by the Axis and its Satellite from April 1941 to August 1941. Map. Maps of Yugoslavia at War, Washington, 1943
4 Howe, Marvine. "Exodus of Serbians stirs province in Yugoslavia." The New York Times. July 12th 1982: A8.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Inconclusive. As far as I can see, this is just a particularly hot edit war. I recommend that the involved users talk their disagreements on a section of the article's talk page instead of making complaints whose grounds are hard to verify by an outsider. Same for the WP:ANI thread. Húsönd22:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments here. As an uninvolved party, I believe Guido den Broeder should be blocked for incivility and wanton violation of 3RR. To ignore these simply because the page is protected is only worsening the problem. Blocking Sciencewatcher might get the point across too. I believe that simply by protecting and not blocking, it's giving these users a chance to edit war indefinitely, and this war is just too lame to go to arbcom. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree - it appears Guido reverted 5 times in less than 12 hours, citing "consensus" for his edits while being reverted by multiple other editors. I don't think this was a case for page protection, but for a 3RR block. That said, since the page is now protected and Guido has declared an intention to ignore the other involved editors rather than discuss, perhaps you could opine at the ensuing WP:AN/I thread? MastCellTalk00:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3RR does not apply for several reasons, the easiest one being that they were different users (with different reasons, also), another that my actions were to protect due process and were unrelated to any opinion I might have. My relative incivility is not the cause of the problem, but the consequence, a reaction to the incredibly horrid incivility and abuse by opposing users in the face of which I have remained civil for a long time - we are talking many months -but have now given up after a final attempt to reason with them. Other constructive users gave up much sooner and have long left this topic, which has been dominated by SW's and JFW's behaviour since well before I joined Wikipedia. The root of the problem with these users is that JFW has repeatedly stated that he does not believe the / my disease to be genuine, and that SW has repeatedly insinuated that patients are / I am to blame for being or staying ill. Users which such prejudice should IMHO simply not involve themselves with the article. Concensus is a result of discussion. Two of the three opposing users did not participate in the discussion, while not all users that did participate, and came to the concensus, edited the text. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry "that they were different users", no 3RR applies to your actions, not those of other editors and it matters not if it was 3 editors or 5 who disagreed with your actions, you are blocked. See WP:3RR, this is not a license to revert upto 3 times but a ring fence of something taht is so disruptive that it will result in a block - indeed revert less than 3 times may also be seen as sufficiently disruptive to warrent a block. David RubenTalk04:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Queluz
I replied on my talk, but just wanted to say I think they are the best interior fotos on the encyclopedia, interiors are so rare here, even the one's at Versailles are very grainy and not as good as these and most similar pages don't have them at all. I've added them all - This will be the best illustrated page I have done. Far more exiting than being on the Arbcom! Giano (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I was just arriving here to say how beautifully nuanced they are... and to wonder if you've passed through the Calouste Gulbenkian Museum with your camera. Decorative arts are very thinly covered at Wikipedia. Any French furniture would especially be useful: I promise to work into articles anything you can shoot. --Wetman (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, --Elonka10:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Húsönd
Dear Húsönd, I don't even know what to say, to such a lovely note you left for me. Although I don't think we've ever officially "Wiki met" each other, I am quite familiar with you, as I've often seen you around the areas I frequent, and perhaps I've even bumped into you without knowing it. I have replied on my talk page, but I wanted to drop by here as well, and thank you for your confidence in me, as it truly means so very much. If you would like to discuss anything in more detail, feel free to email me, and I'd be more than willing to talk about things so not to bulk up your talk page. Thank you again, it means a lot to me. Ariel♥Gold20:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFA?
Hello Gscshoyru. I've been witnessing your superb work here on Wikipedia and wonder if you would be interested in becoming an administrator. If you are, and if you need a nominator, I hereby offer myself for the task. Best regards, Húsönd17:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Wait about a month or so. I haven't been active the last month 'cause of exams, and I have yet to actually improve articles, which in my opinion is the most important thing you can do, since that's what wiki is all about. But exams are over and it's winter break, so I plan to fix up some math articles. Once I've done that, and gotten back in the vandal-fighting groove once more, then you can nom me. Gscshoyru (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe further discussion will be productive, and have submitted a new move request, an approval poll between all the possibilities mentioned at the last move discussion. I think it would be appropriate if someone else were to close this one. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson06:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread what I say above; I tried to be more nuanced than you suggest. I would expect any admin, having closed a matter once, to allow others to close the next time. (Within reason; this is not a justification for increasing the backlog.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson21:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question about disciplinary action
User talk:I love entei tagged my article on Lazarraga for deletion because it failed to indicate the importance of the subject, but it was all in there. I asked him why he did it, and he said it had to do with lack of categorization, broken, links, and being a "poor article" (no arguments there, but hasn't the guy ever heard of stubs?!?) I asked about the "no indication of importance thing," and he just dodged the question a couple of times. (Check out my talk page for the other half of the back-and-forth.) I told him I'd report the tagging as malicious if he couldn't explain his actions, and he couldn't, so I'd like to know how to report him. I looked around, but couldn't find anything. Also, it might be interesting to you to note that a page he created at 13:11 today (Dec 22) on a vacuum cleaner has been tagged for deletion. Perfection Vacuum Cleaner. It looks to me like he was looking to get back at the world. I don't know how someone who could write an article like that could call the Lazarraga article "poor." (I'm cross-posting this to a couple of people on the Basque Project.) Madler 05:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just found the Community Portal link (d'oh!). I had been searching for variations on "disciplinary action" using the regular search box. Madler 05:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach.
But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole.
I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though.
But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment.
Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version.
Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled.
I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes.
Larry Pieniazek
NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "F"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "G"s, and "H"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am just the messenger, Husond; I think you can guess who asked me to pass this on. The FA classification was well earned, and your photos played a major role. Risker (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy!
Husond, I have a bit of an issue. A fellow user has asked me for input (I suspect he mistakes me for an administrator) on a dispute he is having with another user, whom he apparantly tried to help. He has been accused of Wikistalking, and the basis for it is that one of the disputants mentioned the other disputant's name on the talk page of a fellow editor, which he states is in violation of WP:TALK. However, I didn't recall reading that it was uncivil to do this, and when I checked, I didn't see anything about the mentioning of others that his edits had violated. Is there anything on Wikipedia that states that another user's username should not be mentioned on another talk page? Maser(Talk!)00:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strauß / Strauss
My apologies for not responding to the message you left me. I was thinking about a reply, but had to leave for a New Years party before I could finish a decent response. I didn't edit again until January 2, and forgot about the message. Thanks for your patience throughout the mess I made and Happy New Year. James086Talk | Email07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smile!
Here are a load of apples for you! Apples somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Acalamari00:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you noticed this under the whole wall of text, but isn't the fact that googling "Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive" returns only references to Wikipedia is reason enough to reject that name as original research? True, "Jassy-Kishinev Operation" and "Iassy-Kishinev Operation" are not particularly popular in Google searches either (this operation isn't quite as popular as Barbarossa), but at least they do point outside of Wikipedia and include book names and topical sites.
post-edit conflict: Aww, sorry, hope I didn't spoil the message above... :o] --Illythr (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But there are still dozens of ("Western") books using the "J/I-K" name and none using the current one! In other words, do you acknowledge that we can make up our own names for things here on Wikipedia? --Illythr (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the operation itself is not very well known in the Western world, but if all professional native-English (biased or not) topic-specific books, however few, call it one way, I don't understand the need to invent a new one. Sure the article itself may explain (right now it does so by linking in the first sentence) the modern names for the involved cities in English, but the name itself should be the one from history books. --Illythr (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While finding all those books in hardcover might be difficult, a Google Books search does provide the necessary consistency, IMO: 41 hits for "J-K O", 19 more for "Y-K O", versus none for (a more liberal search on) the current article name. The usage of Romanian language sources proves that "Operaţiunea Iaşi-Chişinău" is the correct Romanian name in Romanian. It has no effect on the current name in English, however. There is no need to look for it in Romanian language sources unless someone intends to introduce that name into English. And if one does intend that - Wikipedia is certainly not the place to take the first step in that direction. Besides, AFAIK, the original geography-related names tend to be preserved despite changes of their primitives. I found some examples here, for instance. --Illythr (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(For later today ;-) )Note that "Iaşi-Chişinău", as a general area or route between the cities is a perfectly valid reference in modern English. The article in question, however, describes a 1944 operation with a specific Russian codename that was translated (via German, apparently) by military historians in a certain way. That is why all Google links to "Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive" ultimately lead either to that very Wikipedia article (99%) or some amateur translation from Romanian into English (~1%).
I considered the original move (which was also pretty unilateral and lacked discussion of any kind) to be genuinely misinformed, sought to explain it in talk, and found the sudden resistance to something that looked like correcting "2+2=9" to me most astonishing. When all current name links lead to Wikipedia and all English scholarly sources use one name (with slight variations) - what proof is needed to prove that it's the scholars who are right? I didn't even see a need to prove anything, until you - a neutral and uninvolved side - voted to support that "alternative" version. --Illythr (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply pick the most popular one of the J(41)/Y(19)/I(1) bunch, which would be "Jassy". "Iassy-Kishinev Op" brings up just the one book by Glantz, whereas "Yassy" is merely a more direct derivative from Russian. --Illythr (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask you to take another look at the discussion, particularly this section? mrg3105 is being quite incivil and failing to AGF -- my arguments are based on Wikipedia policy, not "Romanian PRIDE". For all I know, his comments may even fall afoul of the Digwuren restriction. Thank you. Biruitorul (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.
At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars
If you are interested by all means feel free to join
I'm sorry about the confusion with Samba (old), but I didn't imagine that such a move was irreversible.
I beg to differ with you with regard to wikipedia policies. Many articles in this situation do not have words in parens, I could cite numerous examples. That happens when they are obviously the senior article regarding that name. I think this is the situation here. There's nothing in the disambiguation page that comes close in relevance or claim to the name Samba as Samba (music). The second most relevant IMO is Samba (software), something which was created in the 90s and borrowed the name from the music. Thus it is my opinion that Samba (music) has the right to the title Samba alone. --Mahriolobo (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. My internet is relatively slow, and my comments couldn't get through there (edit conflicts), so it's copy pasted below, if you're interested.
(ec x 3, + a possible death threat from my ISP) The original banner was not aimed at anyone in particular (notice how many other people have asked for a speedy close and completely ignored Deskana etc. in the process - obviously WP:READWELLWITHOUTBANNERS wasn't working). The second banner was hypocritical - getting angry about a banner using another banner is just that. I'm sorry if you found that claim offensive. I have no problem with Black Kite's removal of the banners. pours a cup of tea —Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Saw your comment on Alison's talk. Feel free to block if you think that's the best thing to do. Otherwise, Gtalk/IRC/talk page if you want to take this further (for god sake, don't make me edit ANI, you'll never hear from me...) —Dihydrogen Monoxide02:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm grateful you didn't block - if nothing else you'd have been in a truckload of unnecessary hot water (just the way I feel now). I agree reporting to ANI is a good idea, it's just a nuisance for me when people can actually process an edit the same day they click save page :( Anyways, you can't have tea without cookies, can you? *gives a choc chip* —Dihydrogen Monoxide03:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments at my RfA and request that you reconsider your vote as I have expanded upon question 1 (per your request). If there is anything further I can explain, please don't hesitate to ask. — BQZip01 —talk04:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took another look at that Queluz National Palace ballroom. Would it be possible for you to return there and shoot again on an overcast day? That should eliminate most of those blown whites. Cameras don't adjust for differences in light intensity as well as the human eye. If I were shooting this I'd stand near the right wall instead of the left, use a slightly longer lens, and tilt the camera upward slightly. That should get you better levels and more of that spectacular ceiling; the floor isn't really that interesting. There's a featured picture in there - you just haven't quite shot it yet. DurovaCharge!09:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
