User talk:AadaamS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi AadaamS,

As per the discussion here Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Arrested_v._detained. The lead should either say arrested or detained. Please change your recent addition of 'captured' to one of the terms for which there was consensus.

Zuchinni one (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed over on the Kaga article that you felt the article had a bit of an issue, and someone responded "well, it has a perfect 5 rating." I hadn't noticed that voting option so I rated it based on how I felt, I encourage you to go give it a vote too. Kaga votey link

Disambiguation link notification for October 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bachelor party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Trafficking
Nickel–metal hydride battery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Chevron

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, want to help out with HSBC and money laundering aspects?[edit]

Hi, I'm writing to relatively recent contributors, including on the talk page, and asking if they want to help out. I still think there's a fair amount of work with this whole money laundering aspect, not that we've made mistakes, but rather in terms of making a good article better. For example, I think officials of the U.S. Justice Department have directly said they did not want to punish HSBC harder and risk the bank losing its license---because of risk of major economic disruption.

If you have time, please, jump in and help. We can probably very much use your help. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Using RFC template[edit]

You seemed a little unsure about how to use the RFC template so I thought I'd drop in and give a little advice. First and foremost, your RFC is in the "unsorted" category, which not everyone watches. You typically want to give it some sort of category with templates like this: {{rfc|pol|reli}} . This would include it in the list of politics related RFCs as well as the list of Religion related RFCs.

Second, there are lots of RFCs floating around out there, and user time is very limited. In order to get responses, you should really do all the work for us. This means explaining the dispute as neutrally as possible, and describing both sides to the best of your abilities. Sometimes this might not be possible if you're dealing with bad faith editors, but try to assume good faith until it is extremely obvious that good faith is absent. Additionally, you should include diffs of the dispute, for convenience. In longer and more complicated disputes, dozens of revisions are possible, after edits, partial reverts, and modifications are made. Sorting through this after a dispute has been raging for weeks is a nightmare, so diffs are always a welcome sight.

Finally, your efforts to resolve this dispute were limited to edit summaries. This is bad form, on both your parts. An RFC should not be the first and only comment on the talk page. You should attempt to resolve conflicts on your own before starting an RFC, starting with the article talk page. If that isn't seen, send the editor a message on their talk page, inviting them to discussion. Remember to assume good faith, most of my recent disputes have been the result of editors assuming bad faith in me, or I in them. Believe it or not, most people are here to improve the encyclopedia. Start a discussion and try to keep a cool head explaining why you think your position is correct. Paragraphs on a talk page can be much more persuasive than a sentence or two in a revert, which is seen by many as a slap in the face.

Hope that helps. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that was my mistake. I thought that the first sentence Talk:Honor_killing#Sweden_section_-_relevance was part of the RFC. Usually RFCs get their own section, though it isn't required. Also, I didn't see the messages on that user's talk page. You did mention it, but I forgot as I was writing my response, my bad. It seems to me that you have been more than patient with this user. They still have not responded on their talk page. This behavior strongly suggests to me bad faith POV pushing. User that demonstrate cynical behavior such as this merely count reverts per day and per user to skim under the WP:3RR. If two users are reverting him, as is the case here, he will either have to resort to dialog or silently concede. Let's leave the RFC open for a week and if there are no responses from him, or an overwhelmingly one-sided response to the RFC, as I expect, then we can close it. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to High-speed rail may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Railway Gazette[edit]

Hello Aadaams. Thank you for your support during the edit war. Now, my mail to RG seems to have been usefull (I said they harm to reputation and image of SNCF TGV) as they finally update their article :) world-speed-survey-2013. I hope that, now, other editors will be more prudent even with "reliable" sources. What about your WP:RFC now ? Regards. --FlyAkwa (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Bonjour! No problem. When you started to bring in more sources and your opponents kept going on about one single source instead of finding more, I decided whom to side with. I've seen similar debates before and the one who is in favour of bringing in outside arbitration or the one that seeks more sources to support his claim usually prevails. When the others did not respond to my suggestion of outside arbitration and made excuses for not finding more sources I had a good guess what was going to happen. Unfortunately the updated RG article does not seem to have ended the edit war and that a great disappointment to me. As for the RfC, I'll try to cancel it somehow. I think you should thank Z22 as well as he supported you, I don't want to steal credit from him. Cordialement, AadaamS (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I just thanks also Z22 for his help, as you suggested. The edit war seems (at least) finished, as the remained sentence hasn't been edited for 3 days (despite this sentence is near nonsenses and without relationship with its chapter). There is also another risk of "war edit" about the Spanish disaster.
Unfortunately, the same guy now attempt to attack and remodel the "Land speed record for railed vehicles" page...
Best regards. --FlyAkwa (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello AadaamS. I'm sorry to disturb you again, but could you help me again to maintain the neutrality of the Land_speed_record_for_rail_vehicles page ?
I'm afraid that the same guy "Bobyrayner" with its propaganda and misinformation try to make a new edition war, and he knows the mysteries to convince administrators against me. Unfortunately, I don't know theses tricks. And after its "loose" on the "High Speed Rail" page, he now attacks the "Land Speed Record Page".
If I'm again alone against this guy, administrator will again take sides for him. Could you help to denounce its actions to the administrators ?
Thanks. --FlyAkwa (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Bonjour FlyAkwa, I think the reason that administrators side with your opponent is that while he indeed at times fail to adress valid points by those who oppose him, he doesn't launch into personal remarks. For instance he never agreed to bring in outside arbitration for the last dispute, or even to discuss the quality of Google Maps as a reliable source on geography. You on the other hand, while you do make good points, you also start calling people trolls and "chinese train fans". At one point you even implied that our differences of opinion of the section naming in HSR article was that I was stupid. I can't say for certain that this is why the administrators take side with him since I am myself not administrator, but if I was one, it could be a reason if I was reading quickly through talk pages and didn't go deep into the issue. If you wish to prevail again, instead of coming at others with accusations of bias ("you're a troll") or lacking mental agility, you should stick to criticising their sources and their edits only. There are WP guidelines about this, see WP:DNIV and WP:APR. Invoke wikipedia guidelines on where they apply to make your arguments. (this is the strategy I try to follow) Right now I don't have the time to get involved in another edit war, sorry. This might change later in the week. Good luck! Cordialement, AadaamS (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you[edit]

Mediator Barnstar Hires.png The Mediator Barnstar
Thank you for your efforts to try to end the edit warring on High-speed rail page. Now that the issue is closed. I have a high hope that we will continue to see it as closed. Z22 (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Z22 this is my first barnstar and it is great to know that my efforts are appreciated! AadaamS (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited R-77 (missile), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Exfoliation (cosmetology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colgate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)