User talk:Localzuk/archive2

Holiday dates

Just possibly April, yes. I must need this holiday more than I thought :-) Cheers --Pak21 07:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User 65.68.242.201

He has also vandaled the Windows XP Media Center Edition Aeon 16:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary info

Hi!

I'm a newbie here, so thank you for the information regarding adding the edit summary to the 'dog training' page changes.

Please let me know if there is anything you see that I'm doing that is in poor 'wiki-ettiquette'.

Thanks again! Cheers, Christine Gemandbear 23:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality of Adolf Hitler

FYI...This article is up for vote on AFD. OSU80 01:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi, Lz, it's good to see you around again. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just looked at the link you posted. Good luck with that, if there's still stuff ahead, and I hope it went okay for you if it's over already! SlimVirgin (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why?

I've had this conflict before, possibly with you. I'd like to better appreciate the reasoning. I take it you are familiar with the list of most requested articles and how it is compiled?

Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. In any case, you're not the first one to be opposed to redlinks and I'm on a mission to get people to see redlinks as a good thing, so I'll bite any time. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

SimCity 4

I noticed you removed the development section from SimCity 4 because it's empty... some other editors, along with myself, had left that there so hopefully, someone else would write the section. Sort of like putting a "for rent" sign on an apartment, or a "help wanted" sign in a storefront. I'm going to put it back, hoping someone will respond, but thank you for your concern about the article's quality. Thank you for your time, RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 00:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you reasoning, but I don't necessarily agree with it. Let's discuss this further when I get off of work in about 6 hours. Thanks, RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 13:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Rome Total War

Would it be possible to get somehow get some sort of third party to look at this mess? I would like to see it resolved ASAP, and I apologize for violating the 3RR; but the other parties involved have also violated the 3RR. --DarthBinky 18:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention. Also, the information in question has been re-added by the other party.
Again, I apologize for you having to become involved like this. Cheers. --DarthBinky 18:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ubuntu (Linux distribution): we're getting confused now

I think you and I are of one mind. Can you please comment on the Talk:Ubuntu (Linux distribution) talk page? Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I'd argue this is now clearly vandalism, so WP:3RR doesn't apply. The AOL IP is consistently adding back text without any support, when there are at least three other editors who think it should not be there. Cheers --Pak21 14:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

All a bit academic now as the AOL IP has got themselves blocked (twice in fact after going after my user page as well). I have a nasty feeling we'll go through all this again tomorrow though, at which point we may have to think about semi-protection. Cheers --Pak21 14:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
There's another member of that little gang going after the Jedi Order redirect; that happens to be the name of one of the clans who keeps vandalizing the Rome: Total War, so they keep messing with it.
And Pak21 is right, this has been pretty much a daily thing for me, as you can see in the history for both R:TW and Jedi Order. But at least I'm not fighting it alone now.--DarthBinky 16:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read the 3RR rules

Revert don't have to be realted. The 24 hours window does not have to be on the same date. In short - I think you should read the rules. She made 7 reverts within the window of the 24 hours (starting at the 1st revert). Some of the reverts are full revert but even changing back a number from 8 to 7 to 8 is a revert. Since she self reverted in the middle this counts as 6 reverts. Just read the rules. (this also apply to my previous report which the reviewing admin made a mistake) I understand the need of admins "to help one anothetr" but not at the expense of leeting the rules be broken. Read the rules and update your comment. (BTW, her own edit summary indicate reverts so read those as well) Zeq 14:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I read them. No offense taken.

Have you read the 3RR rules ? can we discuss each one to see if it is or is not a revert ? Before we do can you review each one of them. Form your opinion and lets' discuss each one. Zeq 14:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

We need to discuss this in deatil. I suspect you fail to understand what "a revert" is. Please indicate for each of the 7 incidents I listed which one you agree is a rever and which one you don't. After we establish what of the 7 is a revert we should look at when did these reverts occurred. If 4 of them occurred within a window of 24 hours this is a violation.

  • Please familiar yourself with the definition of WP:Revert especially with the words "A partial revert undoes only some of those changes"
  • and the WP:3RR which sais "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period. This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day."

Thanks. Zeq 16:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You fail to under stand what revert is. Any undoing of another editor edit is a revert. Even changing a number that another editor changed to 7 back to 8 (or vice versa)Zeq 17:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

fisrt you claim these are no reverts. Now you say they are under 'justifications" . Your analsis is flawed on the timing. Your first argument was that they were reverts but not "all realted" to each other. I suggest you remove yourself from this issue all together since you are unable to get your decision to be consistent. The only excpetion that could be taken into account is vandalism - please point out which edit vandelize the page and which of her reverts was to undeo vandalism ? Zeq 17:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Linux

A new WikiProject. In case you're interested. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ubuntu thanks

To User:Localzuk, User:Twinxor, User:Easyas12c

Just wanted to say well done for your contributions to Ubuntu (Linux distribution), which were important in getting it to FA status, and for being involved on its FA day and/or the aftermath. It's always so much better working with a group of people towards a common goal than walking the walk alone. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating the three-revert rule on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.  Your block will expire in 12 hours. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
My sincerest apologies. I'm not sure how exactly I did, but somehow I accidentally blocked you rather than User:Skinmeister. I believe that when I checked the diff of where you warned User:Skinmeister that I then hit the block link on you, rather than him. Sorry =D. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Real-time strategy

The sheer frequency of or and source-templates in the article made the afflicted sections virtually unreadable. I'm not denying the necessity of furnishing the article with sources, but I've never seen any other article on WIkipedia with such a liberal addition of them. I'm reverting again, but am inserting the section-OR and section-unsourced templates, which is more appropriate, gives the same warning to the reader, and does not detract from readability. Also, it preserves the edits to the contents I made. Mikademus 10:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I am writing to inform you, and many others, that an AfD in which you voted delete, List of automobiles that were commercial failures, was already unsucessfully nominated a short time ago, but under a different title. This was not noted in the nomination. Please read the opposing arguments here, and reconsider your vote, because it is important that the opinions of previous voters be considered. Thanks! AdamBiswanger1 23:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

edit summary

Can you expand on your edit comment? Maybe you could describe the definition of "rant" that you were thinking of. --JWSchmidt 14:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Your definition of "rant" seems to diverge from conventional ones such as: "a loud bombastic declamation expressed with strong emotion". Rather than describe this editor's contribution as a "rant", a more constructive approach might have been to invite the editor come to the talk page and discuss their edit. In my experience, if an edit really was a "rant", then the editor probably will not bother to try to defend it on a talk page. Wikipedia:Civility mentions "judgmental tone in edit summaries" as a "petty example" of incivility that contributes to an uncivil environment within the community. --JWSchmidt 15:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Draize

Hi Loculzuk. Thanks for your comment about the Draize test discussion, i appreciate your candour. We all have bad days (i have had a few on the Pro-Test article) where our judgement is not quite up to par, but the important thing is that there was no harm done. Keep up the good work. Rockpocket 17:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject

I have concerns about this. You're inviting people who have edited those articles extremely disruptively. And your suggestion that (a) animal rights and welfare be joined, but (b) animal rights and the rights movement be separated, is very odd, because it should precisely be the other way round. Animal rights and welfare have very little to do with one another, whereas the activists and writers who campaign for animal rights are engaged in determining what the concept currently stands for, and so are inseparable from it. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but I still don't see why exactly animal rights and welfare are unrelated? One could argue that the notion of animal welfare stems from the fact that animals have a right to be treated humanely, so it is not diametrically opposed to the notion of animal rights except for the most extreme positions of the animal rights movement. If you are interested in a creating a comprehensive resource that clearly examines both sides of the issue, then you have to expand the scope of the wikiproject and include editors with diverse viewpoints and not simply exclude them for being allegedly disruptive. Cheers, Nrets 01:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Things being listed as Animal liberation movement was just me when I created the category. I wanted to call it Animal rights or Animal liberation, but someone said that was POV (because it implied those were good things), so I called it Animal liberation movement, because that's what the movement calls itself. So please ignore that.
Animal rights and animal welfare have nothing to do with each other. Of course, it goes without saying that rights activists want to see animals treated well, but the two concepts are diametrically opposed. One says we have no right to use animals; the other says we do. We can't have one wikiproject embracing opposites.
I suggest we call it Wikiproject Animal rights, and be done with it; and if the category name bothers you as being different, we can change it to Category:Animal rights.
As for the invitees, I don't agree about some of the disruptive editors. When you have people insisting that animals have the right to be tasty, or wanting to use Penn & Teller as sources, I don't think any number of guidelines would change their attitude. It would be good if, one day, the wikiproject attracted some more serious editors with knowledge of animal rights, but such people aren't going to spend their time debating some of the disruptive ones the articles seem to attract. In fact, we've already had at least one such serious contributor leave after a short time, unfortunately. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and set it up, and I've listed those who signed up on the proposal page. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Your recent comments regarding the views of people on the Peta Talk page show a severe lacking of good faith. Please try to Assume good faith.-Localzuk (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain what you meant by this? I see no such comments. — Omegatron 23:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)