User talk:Ghirlandajo: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:47, 12 September 2007

ARCHIVES:

DYK - Henry Hunt (politician)

Did you know? was updated. On 30 August, 2007, a fact from the article Henry Hunt (politician), which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

~ Riana ⁂ 10:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An ideal team!

Andrey, I am always amazed and delighted by the periodic DYKs that appear on my talk page, largely thanks to the work you do on the raw material I provide on the Humanities Desk. We make an ideal partnership, a little like Marx and Engels, or Laurel and Hardie! All the very best from Anastasia. Clio the Muse 22:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 30 August, 2007, a fact from the article Nikolay Kruchina, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Peta 23:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 31 August, 2007, a fact from the article Ladoga Canal, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks, for the nth time, for your nominations. Daniel 06:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skhimar

Made some additions based on Brook and an article by Ehud Ya'ari. They both call the site "Khumar". Should we rename the article "Khumarinskoye gorodishche" or "Khumar", as Skhimar seems a rather obscure Georgian designation? --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtier and Favourite

- are both just dic defs. I've left pleas in a couple of places, & can chip in myself, but I'm sure you could make a great job of them. Any chance? Johnbod 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling (lurking as usual) is that any material that could go here would be more encyclopedic if incorporated under Noble court (bad title), even as separate sub-sections. These should be redirects, IMO. --Wetman 22:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen that. It certainly is a terrible title, but the article is a start. "Courtier" should probably redirect there, but "favourite" certainly deserves its own article. Johnbod 01:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian counties

Sorry for the late reply. I have been very busy lately. I will address the issue when I have time (hopefully tonight).Hajji Piruz 23:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storm page

Howdy partner, liked your storm page Meteoguy 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 4 September, 2007, a fact from the article Coptic architecture, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 22:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rye

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Rozh.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 09:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know...

On 5 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Catherine of Cleves, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 23:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Empires

Would anyone like to comment on this? --Joopercoopers 11:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why there is an Uspensky/Uspenski Cathedral in Helsinki

Hi Girlandajo! You wrote on the talk page of the article on Uspenski Cathedral in Helsinki that: "There is no explanantion why a church in Helsinki should occupy this generic title". There definitely is an explanation: Finland and Russia happen to have a common history 1809-1917. Kindly read my comment on this on the talk page of the article. By the way, your analysis about Wikipedia on your user page is thoughtprovoking! Cheers! --Tellervo 11:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol question

Ghirla, hi, I'm needing the help of a Wikipedia editor who actually knows something about the Mongols (in particular about their activities in the late 1200s). Preferably someone who actually has access to reliable sources, as opposed to someone who's just doing Google searches through pseudohistory websites. :/ Would you be a good person to help with this, or could you point me at someone else that might be able to help? Thanks, El on ka 19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wished to refer you to User:PHG but, since you seem to be in dispute with him, you will be well-served to get a third opinion from User:Adam Bishop (on medieval Palestine) and User:Latebird (on the Mongols). I suppose User:Briangotts and User:Srnec may be interested in commenting as well. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see that PHG has done a lot of fine work on other articles in the past, so I was a bit surprised to see the use of some unreliable sources as regards the Knights Templar. Hopefully it's just because PHG was putting too much trust into some websites that turned out to be pseudo-history fluff (there's a lot of that where the Templars are concerned). I'm hopeful that once we find some reliable sources, things can be straightened out fairly quickly. Thanks for the help, El on ka 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dardanelles Operation

Hi, do we need two articles on the same topic Battle of the Dardanelles (1807)? I notice you haved edited at them both. Chessy999 00:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Hi, just to let you know that I protested against the by-passing of the nomination process here regarding the Kazanowski Palace. --Camptown 20:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not "bypassed" due to Kazanowski Palace, but due to the fact that the nomination for Anne de Joyeuse was accompanied by a good quality image and including the article in the update indicated by Camptown would have resulted in the image not being used. In the past, you have expressed extreme displeasure when this was not done. Have you changed your attitude about image use since then? --Allen3 ^talk 14:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, my principal objection was that Andrey's comments were ignored when Kazanowski Palace was posted on the main page... --Camptown 12:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anne de Joyeuse, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings depicting battle, death and war (new articles)

Hi there. I saw your suggestions at the Reference Desk thread. Do you know of anyone (maybe you?) who would be able to draw up a more complete list of the most famous "battle" and "war" paintings that we should have articles on? commons:Category:Battle paintings might help. The list so far is:

Any more ideas? Carcharoth 08:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know...

Did you know? was updated. On 9 September, 2007, a fact from the article Battle of the Alta River, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 10:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ivan the Terrible

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Ivan the Terrible and Harsey.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Chris B • talk • contribs 14:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi Ghirlandajo! Thank you very much for the star! I do appreciate very much! Best regards PHG 15:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know...

Did you know? was updated. On 12 September, 2007, a fact from the article pseudo-Nero , which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 15:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weather infobox

I think the general idea is good (temperature information is encyclopedic and useful), but I, too, don't care much about this particular implementation. Peacock colors aside, the template is so wide (regardless of whether it is hidden by default) that it would more often than not clash with infoboxes and images. In Irkutsk in particular, there is no way to fix this situation unless the "Geography and climate" section is expanded (more than twice) or moved down (which isn't desirable either), or if the infobox is removed. I don't really know if there is a good solution.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Normally, people get warnings when violating 3RR, but since move-wars are probably the most annoying wars to clean up, you aren't getting that courtesy.

Revert #1: Move revert.
Revert #2: Move revert.
Revert #3: Revert of one of the two previous edits.
Revert #4: Total revert.

In the future, also, please do not completely retask an active page without clear consensus. You are being blocked for 24 hours. --Golbez 21:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ghirlandajo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is absolutely outrageous. I am told the block was prompted on IRC to prevent me from commenting on WP:ANI. "Reverts ##1-2" and "Reverts ##2-3" have nothing in common and are different by nature. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please reread WP:3RR. Reverts do not need to be to the same content. — Yamla 21:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I prepared the evidence before I noticed you had commented on ANI, and I had no clue you were planning to comment there. I prepared the evidence for the block on IRC once it was realized that you had reverted twice by your moves alone. That reverts are different by nature does not exempt them from the Three Revert Rule. This is a statement of the block, not a decline of the block. --Golbez 21:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC block again! Totally outrageous! --Irpen 21:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not an "IRC block". I merely collected the evidence there. This was a personal decision by myself after looking at the recent history. A cabal cannot consist of one. --Golbez 21:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you are expected to drop a line to the editor instead of "preparing the evidence for the block on IRC" (that is, if you don't want the block to be punitive). I am well aware that IRC is full of folks who want me away from Wikipedia, and your action just confirms what IRC is abused for. I have to expect some kind of blow in the back all the time. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on you or the folks who want you away from Wikipedia. I saw a 3RR violation and acted appropriately. As for dropping a line, having been blocked for 3RR multiple times before, you know the rule well enough. --Golbez 21:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) What? I'm as big a critic of IRC as you can find, but I see no problem here. Looks like Ghirlandajo was edit warring. He got blocked for it. This is routine. Friday (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Golbes collected the evidence at IRC"? How can IRC can be used for collecting evidence? --Irpen 21:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict was originally noted on IRC. I looked ar the article, and pasted revert diffs there as I found them. The same result would have come about had I seen the conflict on ANI. (which is where Ghirla himself posted it moments later) IRC had nothing to do with my decision. --Golbez 21:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for Golbez here. After I came online, he asked if a 12-hour block would be acceptable for a user who had no warning, but had engaged in a move war. I asked if the user had a history of 3RR blocks. He said yes, and I said 24 hours was appropriate. After Golbez did the block, I found out Golbez was referring to Ghirlandajo. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez, could you drop IRC log here and users who were involved in irc discussion on this matter? M.K. 21:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I could not, as #wikipedia does not allow for public logging. The discussion was mostly unilateral amongst myself. I noted the sequence of the move war, someone commented that Ghirla had made two reverts in the course of the move war, which spurred me to search for more reverts to see if he had violated 3RR, which he had. The other people involved with this decision are not relevant, particularly as I don't remember them off the top of my head. --Golbez 21:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 218: / Line 218: @@
 ::::::I can vouch for Golbez here. After I came online, he asked if a 12-hour block would be acceptable for a user who had no warning, but had engaged in a move war. I asked if the user had a history of 3RR blocks. He said yes, and I said 24 hours was appropriate. After Golbez did the block, I found out Golbez was referring to Ghirlandajo. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">[[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]] ([[User talk:Nishkid64|talk]])</span> 21:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 :Golbez, could you drop IRC log here and users who were involved in irc discussion on this matter? [[User:M.K|M.K.]] 21:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
+::No, I could not, as #wikipedia does not allow for public logging. The discussion was mostly unilateral amongst myself. I noted the sequence of the move war, someone commented that Ghirla had made two reverts in the course of the move war, which spurred me to search for more reverts to see if he had violated 3RR, which he had. The other people involved with this decision are not relevant, particularly as I don't remember them off the top of my head. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 21:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)