User talk:Dante Alighieri

DO NOT SPAM MY TALK PAGE

Archived talk: Clovis et al., AE/BE issues (french fries), Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

---

putting that link there

you asked to be let to know if it got to arbitration - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams

CheeseDreams 01:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maaaaaaaaax Power!

"Max Power, he's the man who's name you'd love to touch! But you mustn't touch! His name sounds good in your ear, but when you say it, you mustn't fear! 'Cause his name can be said by anyone!"

Ha! But seriously, I was surprised that no one had it when I signed up! --MaxPower 02:26, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

Thanks

Whatever you did to my talk on the CD issue, it was probably just fine, it seems readable now, and I'll happily take your word that it was made more readable. Thanks for the note. Pedant 02:22, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Pet skunk citations

Hi there, it would appear both links I was trying to use for the content in the History section of my Pet skunk article (soon to be renamed Domestic skunk) have been blocked as spam:

• http://members.aol .com/oddpet/chapterskunk.html
• http://jwarnick .com/oddpet/chapterskunk.html

I googled for that content, but didn't find it anywhere else.. it's not really a big deal, but it keeps me from editing the History section, unless I eliminate the link. I think the content is useful, although I understand, if they have become notorious spamsters. Nathanlarson32767 13:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whoa, now it's saying that http://www.bellaonline .com is a blocked spamster too. This just changed in the last few hours. What is going on? Nathanlarson32767 13:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, it's working again. Never mind.Nathanlarson32767 18:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

your recent deletion

deleted :Necrobation: recreation of previously deleted article

Um... why do I think that deletig this multiple times is an act of necrobation? *grins* - UtherSRG 19:04, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, the pun... the pun! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:05, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

...go out clubbing with the ex you split up with because he turned out to be gay

I'm a she. CheeseDreams 00:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome. RPellessier 09:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CD arbitration

Yes, I would. I agree that it's inappropriate. They seem to be using it as a means of showing what hardcore punishers they are. What would you like me to do?Dr Zen 23:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll help with trying to find some. My impression is that they have been champing at the bit, waiting for someone to punish. I thought the punishments handed out to CD were very harsh. She (I note from this page she is a she -- she's done a good job of being nongender-specific!) has sinned but she's also been sinned against. I'm not sure she's been judged on the evidence so much as on the perception that's she's a "troll". Banning her from the christianity-related articles sends the message to the editors guarding those pages that they need only kick up a storm and they can chase off anyone wanting to put a different message into them.Dr Zen 23:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would say as an arbiter (and I don't think I'm speaking out of turn on this) that CD was thought to be unlikely to work well with others, based on past experience and her actions during the arbitration. The goal is timeouts and restrictions as needed, not punishments per se - it's got to have a point.

We knocked off two cases fast with fresh enthusiasm. The rest will take longer, I fear, particularly as everyone is back at work now.

I would say as an editor: on the subject of kicking up storms, I would say the opposite: combining relentless reasonability, evidence of working well with others, a grasp of NPOV and a thick skin will get someone everything they actually want going into Wikipedia. This is based on my observations and experience over the past year of working on it - David Gerard 00:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

for the edit! icut4u

Hey Dante

Thanks for the edit to my user page. That made me laugh! Dr Zen 05:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cape (geography)

I saw you didn't delete Cape (geography) and didn't understand why to speedy delete it. Well, let me explain. The information on the page is redundant. I created the article myself yesterday (or better: moved the content there from Cape), and then found out that the information fitted better on Headlands and bays. So on second thougts I moved the content here. All the links that misdirected to Cape (i.e. the clothing article) I fixed to link either to Headlands and bays or to Cape (disambiguation). So nothing links to Cape (geography) (apart from the talk page of Cape, where someone suggested to move the geographical information there). It is a dead-ended and redundant orphan . I hope you now understand that Cape (geography) was just a step in my thinking process, and allthough you might think that it does deserve an article, it is better to get rid of this version.

links

Hi Dante,

I wished to add the link http:// gruppo04 .100free.com/bookmarks.html (I'm writing it like this because of the spam filter, please remove blanks) in the article "Literature" but something went wrong. The link is about European Literatures. Take Care

Pavel

a broken link

This page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=7310538

whose link was on this page: Wikipedia:Department_of_Fun

does not appear to work. The message indicates that it should be referred to an administrator, so get to work! RPellessier 03:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Formatting problem?

This is a featured article on the main page: Bernard Williams

What is up with the N's?

Should I edit this? Maybe this is a common thing when sending articles across the pond? RPellessier 05:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The weird N's are gone today, replaced by large dashes. I haven't changed browser or viewer, but the last edit of 1/18/05 mentions this. So it must have been fixed. RPellessier 08:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Animal sexuality book!

I want to know if my dog is gay! --BesigedB ^(talk) 00:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And I want to know if Smokey Bear is! Only you can prevent ignorance on this subject, by getting this book out and editing right now! You've been known to waste time on IRC, so consider this an official warning! JRM 00:50, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

Mike Garcia RFA

I'm somewhat disappointed in the abusive and sarcastic language used in your recent nomination of Mike Garcia for admin. Looking here, I notice that you cited the policy of not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. What happened to this? I expect better from a fellow administrator. silsor 05:53, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the nomination. Picking at scabs only leaves scars. Danny 05:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In response to you both, I've modified the language, see Mike's talk page for more details. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:30, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Block IP user, please!

I can't do it, but you can: you're an admin. Special:Contributions/68.94.147.220 is vandalizing George W. Bush repeatedly!! Help! --Neigel von Teighen 23:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing it. I was engaged on an edit war reverting his vandalism. --Neigel von Teighen 23:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Redirect of "common" misspelling

What I deleted wasn't a redirect, it was just a statement saying it was a "miss-spelling" [sic]. It's not even particularly common. Google turns up 608 websites with the term "panick attack" (disregarding the band of that name). CryptoDerk 23:49, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Vfd

Huh? RickK 00:24, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

It's still January 28 where I am.  :) RickK 00:29, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

I am Locutis of Borg ... RickK 00:32, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Need advice on article creation

I want to write an article on an incident that occurred on a lake. I want to write about a topic similar to the african lake whose CO2 emissions kills people, but my incident is far less destructive. How should this be organized? Title the article as the incident, or title it after the lake and describe the incident therein? The lake would not otherwise be noteworthy. RPellessier | (Talk) 07:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocked

I was very unhappy when you blocked an IP address () that was assigned to me yesturday by my service provider. It seems that a vandal using this IP address has made you upset enough to ban him or she. There are so many people using Telkom's ADSL which 198.54.202.242 is in the range (as they hold the monopoly on telecommuincations in South Africa) and who every the vandal is will get a new IP address every few hours if they shut off there modem. I got that IP address yesterday evening.--Jcw69 18:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will try get the IP range used by Telkom for you and also see if ADSL users get different IP address from normal dail-ups. I have in the meantime left a note on Wikipedia:Wikipedians/South Africa and user:Wikiwizzy has responded and said that he was also blocked and that this is a transparent proxy whatever that means.--Jcw69 18:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just contacted my ISP (Telkom ADSL) and they said my IP address will always be in the range of 165.165. ... where as 198.54.202.242 is a SAIX IP which is the main internet exchange between South Africa and the world. I can not contact them directly but will logged a complaint with Telkom who will then contact SAIX. Can you give me more details about when some insidents happened so I can pass on? But I can't see any hope with dealing with the government bureacracy--Jcw69 19:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My actual IP address yesterday was 155.239.136.186, from analog dialup.

reverse lookup 186.136.239.155.in-addr.arpa. 67447 IN PTR wfor-ip-nas-1-p186.telkom-ipnet.co.za.

You will notice the last octet in the lookup, a sure sign of dialup. I was blocked. I mailed you my blocked address, which ISTR started 19x not 155.*

Jcw69 surfed from 198.54.202.242

reverse lookup 242.202.54.198.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR ctb-cache1-vif1.saix.net

No number, but mention of cache. All port 80 traffic is shunted through a squid cache, making it faster for us and cheaper for SAIX. Almost invisible, except it is similar to the "AOL problem".

Solution: whitelist 198.54.202.242 and ctb-cache1-vif1.saix.net

Wizzy 19:29, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked IP at 67.52.188.182

Hi, Dante. Yup, that was me e-mailing you last week in reference to the block at 67.52.188.182. The summary led me to believe that the block was an automatic one. Raul654 suggested that I do RC patrolling logged in from now on. I was tagging some single-sentence, near-zero content contribs for speedy delete via the IP. He thinks that might have been misconstrued as vandalism. Ironic, since I seem to be doing more trollslaying than writing at present.  :^) Anyway, all is well now. - Lucky 6.9 17:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You betcha. Thanks much. - Lucky 6.9 17:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sock puppet check

Can you check to see whether 67.15.54.16 is a viable IP used by user User:Ta bu shi da yu. I know this is a strange idea, but 67.15.54.16 is based in melbourne, Australia.

A look at User Talk:67.15.54.16 may give you an idea of what is going on. CheeseDreams 00:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am not a sock puppet. Perhaps now you can see how I hate the harrassment by this user? Oh, for your own personal edification, I live in Sydney. It's disgusting to think that this user is trying to use another administrator to attack me. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams

I've reverted your 1 week ban and replaced it with a 2 day ban (expiring 2 days from your original block time). 1 week is meant to be the MAXIMUM penalty allowed by the ArbCom for CD violating the order on Christianity-related articles. I've already argued elsewhere that The Jesus Mysteries is only peripherally Christianity-related, so a warning and a short block seems in order. Now, I'd expect a 1 week ban if CD tried editing Historicity of Jesus again or something. I hope you'll see that using the maximum penalty for the most minor of infractions is ultimately counterproductive. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:44, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't ban the maximum for my original block. The 1 week block was for editing the article despite being blocked by using sock puppets and dynamic IPs. I think block-evasion to edit an article the ArbCom (or at least the 3 members who have expressed themselves on the matter) have declared off-limits merits the maximum term. But I'll leave it to you. --fvw* 18:09, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

3RR on race

Slrubenstein has just broken the 3RR rule on race by reverting the article four times in five hours. He should be blocked for 24 hours. Jalnet2 20:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Why did you block them for just 12 hours? I don't think it will have much effect unless they are confronted with a block for a full day. Mgm|^(talk) 21:45, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

3R rule

Some observations on your blocking me for breaking the "3R" rule at the Iraq elections article.

• Revert wars are an unavoidable event given the way Wikipedia is structured, whereby any malicious, ignorant or stupid person can edit articles, and frequently do. They are in fact a necessary weapon in defending truth and accuracy in articles on controversial topics. If they get out of hand articles can be protected while the issues are negotiated (as happened at this article).
• I regularly fight revert wars, and I usually win them, to Wikipedia's advantage. See for example my battles with the Stalinists at Kim Jong-il and Khmer Rouge and with the LaRouchites at a range of articles. Wikipedia would be an even bigger pile of rubbish than it already is if it were not for editors willing to fight and win revert wars with these wreckers. We get no assistance from the Wikipedia PTB, but you could at least refrain from sabotaging our efforts.
• The 3R rule is places the legitimate editor and the vandal on an equal footing. It gives an unfair advantage to one side in any dispute in that whoever gets to three reverts first has to concede the argument to the other side until some kind of arbitration is obtained, which at Wikipedia can take weeks or months as I'm sure you know.
• You will doubtless argue that whether the rule is good or bad it is nevertheless a rule and must be observed. My answer to that is that I never voted for this rule, and was never given a chance to do so. Rules only have moral authority when they are democratically arrived it. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is somewhere between a dictatorship and an anarchy. I do not therefore regard the 3R rule as morally binding on me. While I generally observe Wikipedia rules, since most of them are beneficial, when they are not beneficial I feel no obligation to observe them.
• I will now resume the defence of accuracy at the Iraq election article.

Adam 03:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PS: See White Tower of Thessaloniki for an example of what I am talking about. An anonymous Greek nationalist is repeatedly inserting propaganda into this article. I am reverting these edits and will continue to do so. You would have me concede the argument after two reverts, thus destroying the credibility of the article. Adam 03:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adam, if you look at the article now it seems many of my concerns about the original version were seemingly validated by other users. The article's tone is much much much more balanced now, do you disagree? Are you seriously advocating a 100% pristine picture of the iraq elections? Have you not seen the iraqi resistance article and watched even the main stream media about the overall situation in iraq? While we can debate about whether 44 deaths during an election is a "major disruption" that fact certainly shouldn't be swept under the rug? Anyway, I apologize if I inflamed the tensions during our edit war, but you referring to me as a vandal isn't going to help the situation going forward. How do you justify the removal of the criticisms section? zen master T 11:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I doubt Dante wants us to conduct this debate at his Talk page. I will conduct at the article's Talk page. Adam 01:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please check the Ruger PC9 GR section of my talk page

There is a dustup in a related article. See if my solution offers all of the wikiwisdom of Solomon. RPellessier | (Talk) 20:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation meeting

Template:Mediation-meeting Please edit the side box here (be brief) to update when you might be able to attend. Thanks. -==SV 22:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Nagorno-Karabahk

Hi, Republic of Nagorno-Karabahk is a slight variation of the page at Nagorno-Karabakh (note the 'hk' vs 'kh'). This is an unrecognized country. I was invited into this dispute as a neutral third party mediator (unlicensed!). If you visit Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh you can read all about it; you could also ping User talk:Theresa knott who cleaned up a lot of the mess some anon made yesterday... it doesn't need to go soon, really, I just thought it was a straight-forward easy way to clean-up a typo. I goofed a few hours ago and created a redirect based on this typo: Nagorno-Karabahk Republic, I just haven't bothered tagging it. Depending on how the dispute resolution goes, we may end up doing a version with "Republic".  —Davenbelle 05:25, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

One of your recent edits duplicated much of the page content. It's kind of a mess now, could you fix it? -- Netoholic @ 19:46, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote

Hi. Since you have edited on pages with disputes about the names of Polish/German locations, I would invite you to vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote to settle the multi-year dozens-of-pages dispute about the naming of Gdansk/Danzig and other locations. The vote has two parts, one with questions when to use Gdansk/Danzig, and a second part affecting articles related to locations with Polish/German history in general. An enforcement is also voted on. The vote has a total of 10 questions to vote on, and ends in two weeks on Friday, March 4 0:00. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 11:45, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)