User talk:Iblardi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Correspondence

To anyone who is reading this,

I have been falsely accused of being a sockpuppet of a banned user named Greier. I hereby wish to state explicitly that this is not the case. I have been a bona fide, be it infrequently posting user since 2005, when I first registered as Iblardi. I am Dutch and operate from an IP address based in the Netherlands. In my defense, I wish you to consider two things:

(1) Me being a sockpuppet of Greier's would require him to have been using essentially the same open proxy ever since I registered on Wikipedia ánd have somehow managed to hack the server of a renown national institute from which I have recently been corresponding with one of the administrators.

(2) Furthermore, after some research I have found at least one example of simultaneous postings by me and the banned user: [1], [2], [3]. An administrator who performs an IP-check will be able to see that, if the accusation were true, the user who called himself Greier would at the time have been performing three edits from two different IP-addresses within one minute, and on two completely unrelated subjects.

With regards,

Iblardi 12:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Given this and the e-mail evidence you sent me I have unblocked you. I have replied to your e-mail with more information and hopefully answers to your questions. the wub "?!" 12:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I know it can be difficult to stay away from people you've been in conflict with, but try and avoid following Miskin's contributions. Such behaviour can be considered harassment, and can't be good for either of you. the wub "?!" 21:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Although it is hard to completely avoid him, since there is some overlap of fields of interest, I'll do my best to stay clear of the guy. I didn't mean to be disruptive. Iblardi 05:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This is just an excuse. This had not been the case, it only became the case once you decide to be editing everything you saw on my contribution list. At some point, prior to wub's warning, I'd go through my contribution list then I'd go through yours and find you editing the exact same articles. The dates in the edit-histories and the fact that you had never edited those articles before, reveal who has been stalking whom. Now you are about to start again, so I'm obliged to give you a warning. I tried to reconcile with you via email but you turned me down, you might as well stay clear off the articles I edit. If you are bored that's not my problem, just leave my contribution list alone. Miskin 19:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, if you want to reconcile with me all you have to do is reply to my emails. There is no need to involve third parties in this. The mediation proposal was made for a content dispute, but in reality there is none. There's only an action-reaction kind of communication which causes all problems. Miskin 20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, I promise I'll try to be calmer from now on, it's just that the feeling of being followed creeps me out. I have to go too for now. Miskin 20:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Note

Please restore any ISBN-numbers you may find deleted by user:Iblardi, or numbers connected by a hyphen in general. I appear to be pestered by some kind of malware. Iblardi 01:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

type species

The listing for type species is the original binomial and authority, not the current one. Simia pygmaeus is correct for type species, even though it later got moved to the genus Pongo. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Roman Persian Wars

Thanks for your comment. Also, please see my response regarding your last comment.Azerbaijani 22:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Iranica

Firstly, that article doesnt question its reliability. Furthermore, the AFP article which has been posted on several news organization webpages has been exposed as a lie. The reporter did absolutely no research. Iranica released its own letter objecting to the lies in the articles. I will try to find the Iranica response.Azerbaijani 12:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, its already there. Have a good day.Azerbaijani 12:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin

I have to admit, this impressed me considering your history with Miskin. My hat is off to you :) --Domitius 19:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Immortals (Byzantine)

Greetings Iblardi. Can you help me verify the content of this article? I know the unit existed but I'm pretty sure that the most popular anglophone name is athanatoi. Also, I'm not too convinced about the article's content. I had marked it as 'unsourced' but someone removed the tag and added some references at the bottom of the page. The referencing is still poor and the content dubious. Miskin 21:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine-Ottoman wars

In response to your comment about the nature of the terminology, I agree that it is not exactly a well known term. However, this is not because the term itself is not used; rather information about the conflict is lacking. In any case, I googled for the words Byzantine Ottoman wars and made sure that none with the words "Wikipedia" came up and recieved 26 resultshttp://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=Byzantine-Ottoman+Wars+&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Byzantine-Ottoman+wars&as_oq=&as_eq=Wikipedia&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=off. So it seems thats not unfound. Tourskin 09:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Justinians Origin

You are removing sourced material from the article based on your own WP:POV, like it or not, the references you removed respect WP:RS, and removing reliably sourced material is considered vandalism in wikipedia. Please seek consensus for each of your removals first or they will be reverted and try to discuss changes rather than engaging in an edit war.- Best regards Bartebly62 18:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

William the Silent

William the Silent has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

You watching my edits

It's obvious that you are watching my edits, which is fine but do remember that whatever you think of me or my edits, that changing facts which you consider 'obvious' requires new references, so don't try (wether consciously or not) to include your claims under my reference.Rex 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, without going into specifics, sometimes it is difficult to determine exactly which part of a statement was taken from a source, especially when it concerns more general information and the source is not directly accessible. It is certainly not my intention to suggest those references say something different than they do, of course. As to "me watching your edits", I have this article in my watchlist, so naturally it comes up every once in a while and I may or may not decide to contribute on that occasion. Have a nice day. Iblardi 17:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
In that case, isn't is more logical to assume it isn't in the source? Really the excuse for watching my edits doesn't fly. Like I said I don't mind, but don't lie about it. This isn't the first time.A nice day indeed.Rex 17:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Ehm... Just compare your and my list of contributions, OK? There's nothing to "lie" about. Iblardi 17:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I see, so I'm supposed to believe that it's coincidence you edited Dominicus Lampsonius (an article I find hard to believe you yourself searched for) a mere 18 minutes after I did and reverted my edit? I don't care what you think about me, but I'm not stupid.Rex 18:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that has happened once or twice. But a few isolated instances do not mean that I am following you around in any structural way. Relax about it. Iblardi 18:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I am relaxed,I just don't like people lying.Rex 19:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Now quit the personal attacks. This is getting annoying. Iblardi 19:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you look up Personal Attacks first before you start accusing people of making them. You denied watching my edits and I proved you were. So how do we call that action? Lying. It's not a personal attack that's a well proven observation.Rex 19:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
A flame war over what? Calling someone a liar without proof is a PA. And a what is or isn't a PA isn't determined by you, but trough wikipedia.Rex 19:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not even talking about WP:NPA, but you are right: calling someone a liar without proof is a personal attack. I rest my case. Iblardi 19:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
As I already said, proof has been provided. Accept it and move on. Have a nice day.Rex 20:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Archive 1