User talk:Reisio

TLDR

...is a trollish response. If you don't want to participate in a discussion anymore, just move on, nobody will care. But "TLDR" is not an acceptable response on the Ref Desk. It is uncivil. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's trollish, then what would you call a five page essay damning what is obviously a beneficial idea? It seems to me that adding your comment to every discussion possible is your greatest priority, whether you have a logical contribution to make or not. "I like to answer questions" — User:Mr.98; He didn't ask your opinion as to whether it "would be an awful amount of effort" or by what margin it would be beneficial. <shrug> ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to read it, then don't. But TLDR is not an appropriate response. If you can't tolerate people disagreeing with you, then don't participate. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

How is saying something was so long it wasn't worth reading less appropriate than no response at all? If you can't tolerate people disagreeing with you, then make more sense. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, troll. I guess we're done here. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Flag standards

You and I had a small issue about the Vietnam flag a short time ago. I am in the process of getting a document called "TCVN 2242:1977 Quốc kỳ Cộng hòa xã hội chủ nghĩa Việt Nam. Cờ may bằng vải (National flag of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Flag made of textile materials)" from the Vietnamese Government. Once I get this document, I am willing to share this with you. Would email or skype or IRC be the best method to send this to you? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the only disagreement we had (regarding that file) was that you wanted to make the source file harder to read, which IMO is a silly thing to do with a text format. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but since I know we also had some issues about colors in the past with other flags. Anyways, I still want to share you this docucment, once I get it. I am on IRC now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No need. I don't think (?) I've ever questioned the legitimacy of your sources... in fact I think usually it's your disregarding of your own sources (or other legitimate sources you've acknowledged) to appease others without sources that often bothers me. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I just been finding a lot more, but many of these will not be put online. The only one I changed in the past 2 weeks or so that has an online source with Pantone is the Rwanda flag (partly uses Pantone, the rest RAL, no RGB colors at all). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the sources are fine. IIRC when I looked at that last flag of Rwanda change it looked like you'd found a great source, and one we definitely needed because we didn't really have one at all before. The thing with "flag of Switzerland" (if that's what you're thinking of), to repeat myself, was more about what flags should be at those 'flag of FOO' main filenames — I think they should all represent actual (tangible, real-world) flag appearances, and new files should be generated for alternate versions ("web" colors, etc.). ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing?

You've been running around doing a bunch of edits that would appear to be extremely bad April 1 pranks, except you appear to be serious about it, and it's well past the "It's not funny anymore" point.

Please stop. You're well into disruption now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

For example? ¦ Reisio (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You asked, on your talk page, what I thought you were doing which was disruptive. So -

Edit warring at Compact fluorescent lamp to remove cited content which multiple other editors have restored, including questionable edit summaries: "sure, but ASSUMING pigs fly and ASSUMING muppets are sentient, lights made out of pudding emit even less mercury!" ...you're saying it isn't a nonsensical contrivance depending on not one but two fantastical assumptions merely... because it exists? Or what? (rvl)

Your edits on the page in conflict here, Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays - [1] being the one that started the edit war, and which you've reverted to.

* "there are no useful definitions for"

* "even though it's a waste of time"

* "an essay by the principal author of [[WP:ROUGE]] about a silly word"

* "Most Wikipedia policies and guidelines directly contradict each other"

* "Furthermore, [[WP:Ignore all rules]] is a major policy which invalidates all other policies, guidelines, and even itself."

* insertion of three {{fact}} citation needed tags in the essay.

* changing "scrutinized more closely" to "completely unnoticed"

In addition to edit warring, this is more or less textbook disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if you're interested, but here's my reply to this^:

1. No amount of endorsement by the EPA is going to make that graph anything but a fantastical contrivance. As soon as there's a Wikipedia policy saying I shouldn't attempt to remove nonsense from articles, I'll probably stop attempting to.
2. He started the edit war, not me, and in case you hadn't noticed (as it appears you haven't [maybe because you didn't read my replies? Not sure what else could explain it]), his claims were unfounded (he even contradicted himself).

¦ Reisio (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

lol  :-D

...for your response to why we can't have nice things. I (b. 1953) was raised on Melmac dinnerware, my younger brothers (b. 1955 & 1960) ate off of stoneware, I drank from plastic cups and they from actual glass glasses, etc. ad nauseum. I subsequently did otherwise with my own offspring and hardly anything got broken! Thanks for teh [sic] memories. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Sun Oracle logo.png in now a SVG

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that it appears you made significant contributions to File:Sun Oracle logo.png or one of it's predecessors and that it has now been made into a vector graphic at File:Sun Oracle logo.svg when working with this logo please remember to use the SVG where it is superior, Thanks Koman90 (talk), Network+ 13:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

SVG Logos

Please consult me before removing SVG logos I Create, many of them i create are requested via the graphics lab, and are created form e.eps, .ai, .cdr, or.pdf files. The way you accused me of a "poor auottrace" on File:New MSN.svg is a good example of why i am contacting you. Please Rest Assured That i almost Never auto-trace a raster image because it comes out looking worse than the above mentioned file. Auto-tracing tends to work best on very lage versions of the raster graphic, and this logo's original was not large enough to auto trace without distortion. and also for example File:vmware.svg, vector logos can be recolored quite quickly so I do not see why there was a need do remove these logos and flag them CSD. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me. Koman90 (talk), Network+ 13:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Please consult me before removing SVG logos I Create"

I don't expect people to consult me before correcting mistakes I make (The Golden Rule), and Wikipedia does not require it. I assure you it's just business to me.

"and are created form e.eps, .ai, .cdr, or.pdf files"

Yes, I went through some of your recent history and noticed some could only have been originated from proper official media — others clearly were not, so I nullified them.

"The way you accused me of a "poor auottrace" on File:New MSN.svg"

It clearly is an autorace; for some images that wouldn't be a problem, but for this one it is, hence "poor". It's not a reflection on your skill, because you didn't make it yourself, it was auto-traced. I'm sorry if you feel accused, I usually intend my statements to be matter-of-fact, not personal.

"i almost Never auto-trace a raster image because it comes out looking worse than the above mentioned file"

Like with file:New MSN.svg. That's why I reverted you.

"File:vmware.svg, vector logos can be recolored"

I was thinking of the width and placement of the characters, which is important in a logo and should be reproduced with complete attention to detail. You're right, though, the color was also off. Manually converting official raster logos to vectors is controversial in my eyes — they should at least appear identical upon inspection.

"remove these logos and flag them CSD"

Why leave the work for someone else? If you address the concerns at some point in the future, it's almost as easy to upload from scratch, no?

¦ Reisio (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice you've just gotten online — I'm on freenode if you'd like to talk real-time. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

iPad

If you have an issue with the use of the wordmark, take it to the talkpage there. It has already been discussed and consensus was to keep as it is now.--Terrillja _talk 07:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:CCC, though I wouldn't personally call it a matter of consensus, unless there is some consensus to abuse infoboxes and in other ways make Wikipedia discontinuous, which I'm fairly certain is not the case. Maybe YouTube should have an embedded video instead of its name atop its infobox? Maybe NASA should have a dancing astronaut GIF on its? …or maybe not. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Your edit warring isn't going to change anything. It's a wordmark, not a .gif. Grow up.--Terrillja _talk 07:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I call it maintaining consistency, a word that comes up a lot at WP:MOS. Why does this page say you're offline if you're not? :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you've already been warned about this. Why are you continuing to remove the wordmark without further discussion? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Warned about what? Terrillja warned me (threatened, really, and then called me a vandal at WP:AIV, only to have the listing dismissed) about violating some irrelevant non-consensus he seems to have taken part in. What are you warning me about? You've yet to say, despite having been explicitly asked to. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Terrillja _talk 18:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Terrillja reported by User:Reisio (Result: protected, warnings all around): you have been edit warring at IPad. It was clear several days ago that discussion-by-edit-summary would be insufficient in this case. The discussions at the talkpage and at the Village Pump do not show a firm consensus, indicating that further discussion is in order. It may be useful to make a request for additional input from a neutral venue.

Additionally, please do not start a redundant section at that board; it is sufficient to calmly and neutrally present your side in the same section beneath the original report. It is anyway incumbent on the reviewing admin to examine the edits of all involved parties. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't particularly trust admins to do their jobs (an unfortunate result of a fair amount of experience), but since you ask, should this happen again, I will attempt to once more give the benefit of the doubt, at least initially. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Reiso 'being warned' means that there was a discussion on your talk page telling you to stop removing the wordmark. It was pretty clear that when I reverted your change initially that you were supposed to discuss the matter on the iPad talk page. Please do so.
I accept that it was poor form on my part to revert your edit for a second time, but you should have discussed the matter without continuing to just edit the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I (obviously) do not respond (as some might expect) to warnings with no basis. It was never clear to me, as you all completely, utterly ignored my summaries — possibly why it was unclear to you. I fail to see the point in initiating a discussion with people who are so clearly disinterested in communication, particularly when they can initiate a discussion just as well as I. Nothing personal. ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There was already an open discussion on the talkpage. It had already been initiated, you just chose to not contribute to it. --Terrillja _talk 09:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it was not a discussion about anything relevant to my actions, about anything related to the reasons I had given in my edit summaries. You apparently still have not read them. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. That I failed to contribute to that discussion is because I'm not really bothered either way. I reverted your edits because I thought the consensus on the iPad talkpage was in favour of keeping the wordmark - if you wanted to change that consensus you should have discussed the matter further.
Additionally while Terrillja's second comment looks to me to be a little uncivil his initial comment was civil - so you should have taken it into account before acting without discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That there was a discussion (an objection) on the talk page about deviating from the status quo (not having a wordmark) already proves a lack of consensus, but even ignoring that, the discussion yielded no consensus about anything else, and aside from that consensus is not immutable, and REALLY regardless of it all, the discussion… had… nothing… to do… with my actions — it was a discussion about what size some image should be. Look through my summaries and see if I mention anything about size. Not only was I civil to Terrillja, but I was so while he reported me as a vandal and subsequently, constantly, officially, & unofficially implied to multiple administrators that I was violating policy. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

PS Here's a direct link to the relevant talk page discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This is getting silly so it's going to be the last time I bother saying it: If you look at that discussion as it was during my initial relevant edits and then actually read my edit summaries, you will see that they do not address the same thing. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Swings and roundabouts, there was still a discussion in the general area. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Swings and roundabouts, see previous response. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Copycat

This would be an excellent time to cut that out, before I block you for disruption/harassment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Pardon? If I've done what he's claimed I have, so has he. It would be unjust to take any action against me for legitimately exercising the rights he and I both share. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:POINT.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point [about POINT :p] but IME in situations such as this, bystanders need reality brought into stark relief — a simple "This person's post is nonsense" response isn't enough. I also don't see having to close two side-by-side ridiculous listings at once to be particularly disruptive, certainly not any more than just the initial one (which was not mine), and absolutely not more than a drawn out discussion explaining a "This person's post is nonsense" response when it is inevitably challenged. It is truly regrettable, however, in multiple ways. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Minor" edits

Please do not mark edits such as this as minor. Any edit that makes substantive changes to content should not be marked as "minor" because many edits filter minor edits out of their watchlists and they may miss these changes. Please reserve this classification for typo fixes, formatting, vandalism reverts, etc. Thanks! --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a revert. To me returning to a previous state is often a nonevent. If it sets your mind at ease, though, it's a revert of an edit that's part of an incredibly long-running edit war that admins have done precious little to curb. The reverted edit was both non-factual and borderline vandalism. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If anything is clear on that page, it's that a revert is always an event. I'm sure anyone involved there would agree. As an aside, there is little admins can do when users do not take responsibility for their own behavior. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If anything is clear on that page (and virtually every other page having remotely anything to do with Western Sahara), it's that a disproportionate amount of involved people make edits to benefit a bias, and those edits should be reverted. There is little else users can do when admins do not help. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Was there a recent mediation on those pages? Are the involved editors mostly the same or did some of the problematic editors leave? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There has never been a mediation that I'm aware of (despite pleas for help in official places). Some editors have gone, some made their biased changes and are waiting to see if anyone will revert them (a taxing endeavour, especially when spanning years — I know I've taken breaks from it). As I said it's a very long edit war (a propaganda war, one could argue, between people biased towards Morocco, towards SADR, and those who merely want to be accurate [with a sprinkling of annoying people who just want the last word and don't care either way]), and there's no end in sight. I don't remember Collounsbury making quite so many edits I found questionable in the past, but circumstances change don't they, or perhaps there were greater concerns at the time. In these articles it's not enough that text be technically correct (though this is still a problem) — they need to be devoid of perceivable bias, because the combatants will take every foot hold they can get (one of the reasons there are so many Western Sahara related articles). ¦ Reisio (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't mind helping out but I'm sure you understand by now that admins won't intervene unless someone is clearly vandalizing or acting disruptively. A lot of times with these articles where nationalistic tendencies run high, everyone believes they are "right" and few people are hanging around just to cause problems. Those people I don't mind getting rid of. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be welcome. ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the Sahara Press Service considered a reliable source for Western Sahara-related articles? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

<shrug> ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on HTML5‎‎. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Fleet Command (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you'd been paying attention at all, you would've noticed that I was the one willing to collaborate, and the other guy the one reverting blindly. You'd do well, IMO, to keep your premature notices to yourself, and pay closer attention when you mean to act as an intermediary, so as not to make the situation even worse. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if I really need to pay attention: You made a bold edit (B part of WP:BRD) that Gyrobo did not like. Per R part of BRD, he is perfectly allowed to revert it. Now, you apparently disagreed. However, instead of discussion (D part of BRD) you reverted yet again. This second revert is an instance of Edit warring. Furthermore, your edit summary says “not to my eyes”! In Wikipedia, your eye is not credible source of resolving the conflict; Wikipedia is collaborative effort that works based on Consensus and hence when we have problems we discuss the issue until we reach consensus.

Now, if you wish to discuss the issue, we are listening.

Fleet Command (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleary, as I said. I didn't make a bold edit, I made an edit to make a misleading statement purely accurate. Gyrobo reverted it out of hand, as is his habit. He said the new version was "awkward" and "less clear", but reverted without an attempt at collaboration. I reverted again to make a misleading statement purely accurate, and also because his summary text gave me no reason for pause. Oh noes, not edit warring. Could it be there is something I do that is explicitly allowed on Wikipedia? Silly me. In Wikipedia, my eye has often been the credible source of decreasing inaccuracy, which is rather more important than conflict as perceived by you. Yes, it's collaborative and works via consensus. What you aren't seeing is that two people disagreeing can quite possibly never have a consensus, so that is irrelevant; and I — not he — was the one willing to collaborate, having done so before you interjected yourself. ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I can perfectly see two people who can never have a consensus. In Wikipedia, in those situations, we call a Third opinion, even a fourth and fifth opinion. You can read about other options in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. And yes, Gyrobo has previously been involved in edit warring too, but that doesn't mean you are allowed to do it to him. Edit warring is not allowed, no matter how many people do it. Fleet Command (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd hardly call the action of adding to the talk page saying you "concur" with Gyrobo's comment combined with your revert of my last edit after I made changes to sate Gyrobo based on his same comment to be a distinct opinion at all, merely a useless disruption. I altered the text to address each of Gyrobo's concerns. If your "opinion" was the same as his, you should have been satisfied, and not reverted me. If your opinion was otherwise, you should have stated it, or merely made an edit in this spirit of collaboration you seem to know so much about. "Edit warring is not allowed, no matter how many people do it." You seem to have almost as firm a grasp on reality as Gyrobo — what you've said here is illogical. If people are allowed to do something, then they are allowed to do something. ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, you've started to talk complete nonsense. Apart from the fact that your message absolutely lacks cohesion and coherence, you seem to be trying to twist things in your own favor and you seem to be under multiple wrong assumption as to what I am and I meant.

But enough of this discussion that can continue endlessly and eventually go nowhere. Focus on the problem at hand and if you have anything to say about it, article talk page is the place. And please stop transferring the whole message to my talk page. It is annoying.

Fleet Command (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I have long awaited the end of this… discussion. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Standard diving dress‎

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Standard diving dress‎. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. —EncMstr (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Standard diving dress‎. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Here's the edit in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standard_diving_dress&diff=403378130&oldid=401109945

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Standard diving dress‎. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Another editor properly restored a maintenance tag after you restored it. You then reverted that edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standard_diving_dress&diff=403379690&oldid=403378691 . Don't just undo - follow the process and discuss. Thanks. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

As you've reverted my change, stating "I gave an explanation", would you mind explaining a bit more clearly. "Cleanup" in your edit summary doesn't seem to explain the removal of the tag. The article itself seems to still need improvement. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. In my edit as you know I removed a template suggesting references be added, and a hidden comment. At the time of that edit it had been over a year since the template was added, and in my opinion clearly was not of any use, or it wouldn't been removed already. Furthermore such templates are entirely redundant, as Wikipedia policy mandates the inclusion of reference material. Yet further it seems to me the addition of that template was an instance of drive-by tagging, which is basically a way of one editor to increase their edit count without making any contribution other than increasing the work of other editors. As for the hidden comment, it's a hidden comment, its removal does nothing but decrease demand on servers. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

See my comment here. I'd appreciate it if we could have this discussion in one place. Your talk page, mine, or the articles would all be good choices (I prefer the latter, if given a choice). JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we've both made ourselves clear at this point, no? ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Warnings

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reisio for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey there buddy

Thanks for the updates. I hope you will alert me to everywhere that links back to User:Reisio in the future as well, very handy! :D Goodness knows I can't find those pages myself. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. See Special:Contributions/Reisio if you are having the trouble you mention. Regarding the WP:SPI, I noticed you hadn't been notified, so I did so. I didn't make the report, and don't have a strong opinion on the issue. A very brief glance at the edit histories suggests that the reporting user may be mistaken. As for the Warning header on your talk page, see Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Layout for its use, and use of warning templates such as I placed on your talk page earlier. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I said I appreciate it; I hope you'll continue to inform me of such things gratis for the foreseeable future. As for the Warning header, that page doesn't appear to be policy, so I don't really care what it says (and even if it were policy, there'd probably be other policy contradicting it), but it is admirable that you were following some convention, I suppose. :) Mostly I'm not interested in your warning because it's unjustified. If you look at the preceding discussion on my talk page, you can see that User:EncMstr reverted me for approximately the same reason you did. He asked me to give a summary, so I did (one he's personally used before). If you didn't think my edit was a "cleanup", I'd hope you would explain why. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of the tag, if the article has not been substantially improved in terms of the issue (references), than removal of the tag is not cleanup. As I noted on the article's talk page, I don't see that the article has been improved in terms of references, hence my revert of your removal. Please continue this discussion regarding that article on the article's talk page, should you choose to continue discussion. Thanks JoeSperrazza (talk)

To me, a giant, redundant, and clearly ineffective box makes an article less clean. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

While I agree it is less clean, a more productive approach, rather than searching for such boxes and removing them ("drive by removals") would be to improve the article. Leaving the box allows them to be in a category for those who look for such articles to improve. If you have knowledge of the subject, or the article has special meaning for you, why not lookup and add some references yourself? JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

At this point I have to ask: Why'd you revert my edit if you agreed it is less clean? If you have references to improve the article with, why don't you add them? ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't search for them, I merely remove the redundant and ineffective on a case by case basis, as I come upon them. If they take more than a year in their looking, I question whether they will ever find it. "If you have knowledge…", that's exactly what I'd ask RexxS. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Please use ":" to indent each entry. If you care to not follow that convention on your talk page, you are of course welcome to do so, but I prefer to follow the convention here. As to your comment, I believe we'd agree there is policy to be considered, and not just your opinion, namely:

• The three revert rule.
• Removal of maintenance tags].

I'm glad to have your point of view espoused here, but consider stating it earlier (e.g., in response to warnings on your talk page) and attempting come to consensus, not just redoing the removal (note: you reverted another editor's restoral of the tag in question before you reverted mine. I warned you about your first revert, and about removal of the tag, on your talk page). Cheers JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If you'd been paying attention, you'd know that EncMstr reverted _me_ because I didn't give a summary, and then I made my edit again _with a summary_, thereby satisfying him. _Your_ reversion made little sense, but I have at this point taken a lot of time to explain mine to you, after you (eventually) requested it of me. 3RR is not applicable, read it. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Your summary was "cleanup", which didn't seem to satisfy the criteria. As for the other editor, I can't say why he didn't chime in with a comment, perhaps because, at the time (a) he assumed I had it covered, and (b) the process suggested that before you removed the tag again, you'd discuss it somewhere. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

And yet you agree that it was a cleanup. Yes we did discuss it somewhere... in the very section you added your innitial comments to. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing text of all sorts could be considered a cleanup. I consider it a cleanup to remove a tag, albeit an improper one. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That is an amusing contradiction. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we agree to disagree on the issue of tag removal (and 3RR), and move on and discuss it no more. Best wishes and happy editing to you. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I proposed that ages ago and you weren't interested. If you had just read almost anything at almost any point, you could've spared yourself this waste of time. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of wastes of time, your latest sentry to my talk page. I accept your proposal to move on, and I'm sorry I missed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeSperrazza (talk • contribs)

Yes, I realize it's a waste of time explaining the definition of censor to a censor who doesn't know (or care) what censorship is. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

sout

System.out.println("Hi, i just wanted to whisper in your ears and tell you that you are really the most pathetic guy I have in mind in these moments.");--Xiquet (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks baby. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Flag of Italy

Please stop removing content. If you have anything to say, say it on the talk page. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Little Dragon's external link discussion

WP:ELN#A blog as an external link. Join the fun, won't you? --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 11:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Please stop the edit warring at Little Dragon. Whatever the merits of your position, having you and Soetermans (talk · contribs) flip back and forth is not the right solution. If you need help with this in the future, please leave a note at WP:ELN rather than reverting the link yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 19:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, I am asking if warning you is in order. Perhaps this time you can actively join the discussion, instead of barely replying and in the end STILL reverting the article. --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 19:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notice - Edit-warring

Seems like you don't understand WP:CON, WP:EW, WP:EL, the comments at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#A_blog_as_an_external_link, nor the comments at Talk:Little_Dragon#Blogs_as_external_links. I've gone ahead and started a edit-warring report for your 22 reverts to Little Dragon. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

per WP:NPOV on Western Sahara : The territory's CoA and Flag

Hello,

Since Western Sahara is a disputed territory, redirecting the two pages Flag of Western Sahara and Coat of arms of Western Sahara to the SADR's ones is clearly PoV. I'm sorry to tell you that I will revert any PoV edition on these articles, for both Morocco and Polisario oriented PoV.

Neither the Moroccan flag and coat of arms are WS's ones, neither are Polisario/SADR's ones ; this is the basis of Neutrality on an article related to a disputed territory.

Omar-Toons (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, the dispute is irrelevant, only naming conventions and disambiguation are relevant. When people check Wikipedia for the 'flag of Western Sahara' or the 'coat of arms of Western Sahara', they simply will not ever be looking for the flag or coat of arms of Morocco, ever, ever, ever. They'll search for 'flag of Morocco' and 'coat of arms of Morocco' for those, and will find them. When searching Wikipedia for the 'flag of Western Sahara' and the 'coat of arms of Western Sahara', a person will always, always, always be looking for the emblems associated with the POLISARIO. People also do not look up information on flags hoping for an outline of what is clearly more appropriate and already covered in other articles. There is no getting around it.

You can of course continue to attempt to change the redirects, but I encourage you to be aware that the following will be against any such action:

1. Wikipedia policy on article titles.
2. Wikipedia guidelines on disambiguation.
3. Seven years of status quo. (And 3.5 years, or 10.5 years collectively.)
4. Many others having tried and failed.
5. That you are Moroccan, and are indisputably biased from birth.

The last thing this wiki needs is yet another "article" by a Moroccan outlining who controls what in Western Sahara; we already have the articles Western Sahara, Morocco, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Legal status of Western Sahara, and likely a majority of articles created by anyone associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Morocco and Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Sahara to cover that particular issue. Articles about flags can remain about flags.

¦ Reisio (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPoV and WP:NPA. --Omar-Toons (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Coat of arms of Western Sahara. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Flags and coats

Could the two of you please discuss this on one of the "public" talkpages rather than making this some spread-out private discussion? thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC: X of Western Sahara

RfC about that NPOVN case is here. Nightw 03:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Warning

This edit is not acceptable. Reverting to your preferred version of an article without discussion is edit warring; you should know better than this. Admitting that you are reverting without even looking at the change is also block-worthy as it shows you are not interested in collaborating. I notice you have a fairly lengthy block log; I don't wish to make it longer. If you cannot edit in line with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV you are not welcome here. Please do give this some consideration. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you didn't revert the edit. Could it be you also doubt the user has ever and will ever make a useful, NPOV edit? It's he who cannot act in line with the most basic project goals who isn't welcome here. ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking into his actions as well. But that does not excuse yours. When edit warring, both sides are in the wrong, no matter which is the "right" version. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring#3RR_exemptions; I guess because you're looking into his actions and I'm merely doing something about them you're clearly being more useful, though. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

reverting my last edit

Hi, you've reverted my last edit in an article about relations between Morocco and Algeria without any motive, [[2]], I've commented my contribution in a discussion page if you're not agree please discuss. If you are not able to discuss please restore my last edit. Thank you Kind regards. --Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a motive, it's just not worth mentioning anymore. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC on the inclusion of a table comparing SI units and Binary prefixes

Notice: An RFC is being conducted here at Talk:Hard diskdrive#RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes. The debate concerns this table which includes columns comparing SI and Binary prefixes to describe storage capacity. We welcome your input

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Linux --RaptorHunter (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Eckert IV

Can you create a Eckert projection which is eurocentric? It would awesome if we can use this on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.18.114 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/9423/fooc.png ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow amazing iam using this in german wikipedia. I will send you in the next days feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.18.114 (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Firefox 4

Sorry for the delay in responding; I got sidetracked and couldn't make it back to Wikipedia for a while. Anyway, thanks for the help for the URL popup! It works perfectly! :) - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 22:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sago worms

Thanks for the answer. My friend doesn't want to sell these. He simply wants to buy them for a one-off personal tasting session. He's already tried many weird food items from around the world and this would be just another in a long line. The only thing that worries me is that dead worms might not have the tast the South East Asian natives value so much. Any ideas where to get these legally? -194.60.106.38 (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Blessings

What will be the SIMPLEST way to make a playlist play fasten?.. ( all files)

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.8.59 (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This is just referencing what you're saying thanks for, right? Not asking the question again? ¦ Reisio (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Indeed just a reference. i want to start&finish with the simplest :). 79.179.8.59 (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried to do what you have recomended. i download MPlayer. i didn't understand where and how i should add the following passage you provided;

mplayer -speed 2 -playlist path/to/playlist/file

--- bellow is a copy of what naturally have in a playlist (for example);

1. EXTM3U
2. Playlist created by SMPlayer 0.6.9 (SVN r3447)
3. EXTINF:71,VN870372.MP3

חומר למידה\VN870372.MP3

1. EXTINF:0,2 ציוני הדרך באבולוציה כביכול.wav

חומר למידה\הקלטות - כאוטי\2 ציוני הדרך באבולוציה כביכול.wav

1. EXTINF:0,5 עקרונות הגשטאלט.wav

חומר למידה\הקלטות - כאוטי\5 עקרונות הגשטאלט.wav

1. EXTINF:0,DW_A0385.wav

חומר למידה\הקלטות - כאוטי\DW_A0385.wav

1. EXTINF:0,DW_A0387.wav

חומר למידה\הקלטות - כאוטי\DW_A0387.wav --- would very much dare your help. thanks.

For example, mplayer -speed 2 -playlist C:\Users\Foo\Desktop\the.m3u ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

... for your help @ Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing re:"Malicious program in my computer". Although it was not ultimately the solution, I am grateful for your help. Please see my last post ("Update") at the RefDesk for what turned out to be the cure. Hamamelis (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

template testing in main space

I asked you to confine your template testing to test pages. Now I need to clean up the mess you made again. Your fork serves no purpose whatsoever except to make maintenance more difficult for the rest of us. If you continue this nonsense, I will salt the template so you can't play with it anymore. — kwami (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:IPAc-en editable

As an admin, you should know better than to cite policy while disobeying it — that template was never tagged, AFAIK, and certainly not for seven days. I suggest you undo what you've done as soon as possible. ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I deleted a redundant template with no apparent use, no documentation, and no discussion of what it was even supposed to be for, which simply pulled articles out of maintenance. Perhaps I should have marked it as "routine cleanup". Why don't you start with the purpose/use you should have provided in its documentation? — kwami (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That's how most templates start. If you wanted to see the difference, you should've diff'd them (or simply asked). You should have marked it with a template as explained in Wikipedia:CSD#T3 if that's truly what logic you were following. Why don't you start with reverting your clear violation of policy. It is not I who has violated Wikipedia policy (as an admin, no less), but you. The burden at this point is not on me but you. I really don't want this to escalate, it won't go well for anyone. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mostly I just object to your attitude, which out if politeness I won't characterize further. Also, it wasn't the start of a template. If it were a test template I would've left it alone, but you were using it in articles that were therefore not maintainable from the original template, without any indication on that template that there was a fork out there. I only stumbled on it by accident.

The only diff is in the speaker icon. That's not reason to fork the template. If you want different options for the behaviour for the icon, you can discuss it on the talk page, or add it to the template after testing, just like anyone else.

If you want the template back for testing that's fine (and nothing is preventing you from restoring it), but please don't use it in mainspace. — kwami (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

My attitude? You're an admin who can't even follow policies you link to. I will restore it, and you will look even more incompetent if you violate policy again. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up your mess again, and tagged the template for deletion, since it served no purpose apart from disrupting WP, and you apparently aren't using it for anything else. However, I will delete it and salt it to prevent you from using it if you continue to put it in mainspace; I figure that's a better option that having you blocked for disruption. — kwami (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting how you perceive your complete defiance of Wikipedia policy as me being a disruption. It'll be more interesting still to see what others think of it once your actions attract attention. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You're really edit warring over this nonsense? I've salted the template so you can't use it any more; the alternative is to have you blocked, but I would rather not as I don't see that you've been disruptive otherwise.

I mean, really, do I have to spell this out for you? If you want changes made to the template, then propose them on the talk page, but you haven't actually made any practical changes to the template, so what in the world would you ask for? Creating forks of a template used on 6000 articles is not a good idea; you don't explain yourself, which leaves me with the impression that you're just fooling around and don't like to be told to behave. You wanted the template back, and I was fine with that, as long as you kept your play out of main space. You wanted a formal proposal for deletion on the template, so I made a proposal for deletion, which you then removed despite the policy you had so self-righteously directed me to being very clear that the creator of the template should not remove the tag for deletion.

As for reverting your talk page, sorry. I simply reverted everything you did en masse, and was in the process of reversing myself in some cases when you beat me to it on this page. — kwami (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I could ask you the same question, kwami. To block me would be at least the third abuse of your position as an admin.
Changes were proposed on the talk page, and not implemented. Creating a template used on 6000 articles that virtually no one can or will edit is not a good idea. I did explain myself. Removing pointless misleading icons is not "play". Your deletion template was improperly (surprise?) implemented and not applicable. I suggest reading the guidelines you use to justify your acts beforehand. Simply reverting everything I've done en masse doesn't seem particularly appropriate for you or anyone else, either, but I'll accept it was a mistake.
¦ Reisio (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reported you at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Reisio, not for any specific action, but as a heads up for a situation that looks like it's escalating.

If the changes you wanted were not implemented, perhaps it's because other editors did not agree with them. WP does not follow your dictate: you need to convince others of what you want when you're working on the same thing.

Nearly all templates which are used on thousands of pages are protected, due to the threat of vandalism. That's unfortunate, but routine. The infobox used in 60,000 biographies is protected, for example.

If you wish to remove the icons from the articles, then why not just remove the icons from the articles? They're deprecated anyway. How is that a reason to create a fork of the template? — kwami (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, you are not "other editors". You are an other editor. The net result of me vs you is equilibrium.
The reason to create another template is so that once we waste all the time to remove the parameters we don't have to do it again the next time the template needs an edit and doesn't receive it. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI

You have been referred to at ANI [3] --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)