WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE
- Discussion. I think it it's best to keep discussions in one place. So my talk, your talk, or an article talk - I'll carry on wherever it started.
- Talk page stalkers are welcome here - just join in any time you feel like.
- Admin: If I do any admin things that you disagree with, please don't feel you need my permission to revert or adjust them - just use your judgment. But please do let me know.
Please click here to leave me a new message.
|
Sep 2012
You have twice reverted my edit on Kshatriya. I am not interested in a revert war with you and am not going to update that article.
Just so you know, I was not trying to insert the word in the Devanagari script which is the native script Sanskrit is most commonly written in. Go and have a look at the Devanagari page just so you can know what you are talking about.
IAST is the academic standard for transliterating Sanskrit words into English. All Sanskrit words in Wikipedia are transliterated to English using IAST, that is what I did in this article, and that is what all Sanskrit scholars and academics do in their books.
Kshatriya may be found as an alternative spelling in some dictionaries but that is not the right transliteration, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not wiktionary, so the transliteration should be to an encyclopediac/academic standard.
What is your problem?Srkris (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) Please see User:Sitush/Common#Scripts - I guess that this is the issue. Consensus was to use IPA, not scripts or IAST. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that in addition to a Sanskrit word (transliterated or othewise), there is also an English word "Kshatriya", spelled just like that - look it up in an English dictionary if you don't believe us. So, as this is the English language Wikipedia, we use the English spelling as the primary spelling, not the Sanskrit script, or an IAST/IPA Sanskrit transliteration. They can be added (as Sitush points out, the consensus is to use IPA), but not as the primary spelling - we do not present an IAST/IPA transliteration of the Sanskrit as the primary spelling and then say "and Kshatriya in English". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oct 2012
I see you've deleted this article yet again, per G11. Could I suggest that salting it might get the message across to its promoter that Wikipedia isn't here to provide him with free publicity? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, not a bad idea - tis done. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk)
..cropped up a moment ago at User talk:86.160.211.58 that you may want to see. Letting you know in case it is useful. Cheers,
— Berean Hunter (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'll watch it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Boing, you're a bit of a Thai expert aren't you? Is this correct? For Surapong Tovichakchaikul, would we say Mr. Tovichakchaikul or Mr. Surapong? And more importantly, will we see you at the forthcoming Manchester and Liverpool wikimeets? Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He would indeed be correctly referred to as Mr. Surapong. Don't know about Manchester, but November Liverpool meet is very likely. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For someone who's very busy that was a very quick response. Thanks! Bazonka (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just happened to be checking before I went to bed ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur that the standard form of address for Thais is Mr/Ms + first name. What we do have is a huge error in the Official Thai-Latin transliteration where the final Thai ล (an L) is pronounced in Thai as N, but is always transliterated as L. The classic faux pas of the system is with the King's own name - almost a lèse majesté ! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guild of Copy Editors September 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up
Participation: Out of 41 people who signed up this drive, 28 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing July, August, September and October 2011 from the backlog. This means that, for the first time since the drives began, the backlog is less than a year. At least 677 tagged articles were copy edited, although 365 new ones were added during the month. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2341 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 54 requests outstanding before September 2012 as well as eight of those made in September.
Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the August 2012 competition, and prizes will be issued soon. The September 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The October 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote.
– Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.
|
You want to look at this[1]? The IP just doesn't get it. I've tried telling them to use DRN and it has only resulted in a string of insults on my talk page and there. I'm on the border of just blocking, but since he has been busy insulting, it would look proper if that is what I thought was best. He is likely right on the merits of his argument but refusing to use DRN and just insulting and threatening other editors isn't an acceptable means to deal with the issue, and it appears I have failed to get that point across. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Funnily enough, I just saw their latest comments on your talk page and was wondering whether to warn or to block. But as none of the explanations so far has been listened too, I doubt another from me would - so I've blocked for 24 hours. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have provided information regarding edits in June 2012.
All the references are already accepted references for the page.
All the information are quoted from the references.
If this information can't be challenged or contested, then please edit the page yourself, or let me provide information regarding the necessary edit. Coz the current page is completely biased against yadavs and is a propaganda in action.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaazBahadur (talk • contribs) 14:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replied on your Talk page - it's easier to follow if we keep it all in one place. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. So much for my "great" mind. Nobody Ent 19:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. I've unblocked now too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can we zap User:173.189.34.32? Ongoing disruptive, rapid fire vandalism. - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - 24h. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ta muchly. - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They are still editing? - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that edits by this IP editor at his/her talk page by adding a lot of barnstars and other misleading user boxes to his/her talk page may be not in line with talk page policies. Beagel (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thinking that they'll get bored fiddling with their own page. B!sZ may have gone offline. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, I'm just trying to do my paid work too ;-) Talk page access revoked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Paid work: it isn't something that I am accustomed to! - Sitush (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comments. It just doesn't stop, not to mention the abusive emails about having disingenuously nominated a candidate. This kind of participation on (and off) RfAs is the very thing that has brought the RfA process to it's knees, and defeated every attempt to put it right. If you want some light entertainment, check out the current discussions at WT:RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble is, I don't think it can be fixed by the Community - because it's the Community that is the problem. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) Not sure why my response solicited by Kudpung at the RFA, and provided to his TP in order to reduce traffic on the RFA talk page, has ended up here in the same sentence relating to abusive emails. For the avoidance of doubt BsZ, while I disagree with him about many things relating to RFA, including his own behaviour in the current one, I have not been involved in malicious messages sent to Kudpung. Rgds. Leaky Caldron 13:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Innocent lapse of syntax - a disgusting error for a specialist in linguistics. At least it wasn't a PA... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Boing is correct, the problem is us, the community. I had mistakenly thought Cunard was an admin, and obviously isn't (I'm just too tired for this mess), but it doesn't matter. In particular, I think that kind of overly detailed and verbose voting should have drawn protests by more than just me. Someone hatted it, he reverted it. To me, he has been much more disruptive that some of our more "famously disruptive" editors who were dragged to ANI and Arb. The response has been uneven, to say the least. I don't get why it is tolerated. To me, it should be warning then sanction worthy at the least, but I feel like I'm pissing into the wind. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dennis. A couple of points in his defence (for disclosure, I opposed the candidate and see it more from Cunard's PoV). It was lengthy but not uncivil or polemic. Some of it was off-topic. Removing it would potentially create more unrest and polarisation leading to more disruption, accusations of Admin bullying, etc. I've not heard of someone being sanctioned for being annoyingly verbose. Some of the ideas I would like to discuss with you would however resolve this. Leaky Caldron 20:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is part of the problem, people are saying, "Well, now that I know, I don't support him so the disruptive manner was ok". If you had been the nominator, would you feel the same way? I'm neutral and had weakly supported based on the noms only. He had actually opposed me at RfA, and we never cross paths, so I'm not emotionally invested in him. Actually, this has nothing to do with the candidate. I have seen Malleus dragged to Arb and ANI for less. What bothers me is that all of a sudden no one sympathizes with the candidate, so activity they would normally protest against, now is ok. Double standard. It is that double standard that should bother you, of all people. I've seen you go on a tear when others are treated differently, and if you didn't have a strong opinion about the candidate, I can imagine you would have a strong opinion as to the amount and type of drama found there. If you can, go substitute the names in that discussion, walk in a mile in someone else's shoes, and see if you still feel the same way. If we allow people to be disruptive because it suits our purposes, then we can't complain when that disruption works against our purposes. There is a word for that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He has lost support at RFA but he is not isolated, people are still backing him and offering support on his TP. As for the position of the nominators, another issue worth discussing later but I have seen cases where nominators have withdrawn support and/or suggested that their candidate withdraw. I think if you are a nominator you should be aware of as much stuff about your candidate as possible. This includes asking about controversial off-wiki stuff since that is most clearly an issue that the community holds to be important. If you subsequently discover your nominee has not been completely honest with you then your obligation as a nominator is at an end. Such agreement before hand would make candidates relying on your good name think twice about not being completely open with you during your due diligence. The process should be modified to prevent overkill when things suddenly turn sour. Leaky Caldron 22:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But that isn't the question. Would you feel the same way if you were a strong supporter of this nominee? That is the question. Are we, collectively, guilty of maintaining a double standard here and allowing behavior that we normally wouldn't simply because popular opinion has turned against him? I think the community as a whole, is doing exactly that. That is not equity, and that is not something I just stand without questioning it. Loudly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To add another point, Kiefer was blocked at my RfA for what I consider to be much less "disruption", and I ended up having to speak out at ANI to get his talk page access restored. How is that fair? The only difference is that I was in good favor, and now Simga isn't. THAT is the de facto definition of a double standard. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, it was late and I was tired. Everyone, everywhere should be treated with respect and if excessive/verbose !votes contribute to a feeling of being unreasonably challenged, hectored, pressurised or even hazed and bullied then it needs to be prevented. I felt hazed at WP:AN the other day and that is nothing compared with some of the stuff that happens elsewhere, including RFA. So why are we not considering simple measures such as word limits for questions, !votes and !vote challenges? More detailed initial disclosure questions with a short embargo on !votes until answers are received (saves early pile-ons, either way), very simple rules to limit challenge and response to !votes (which frequently spin off-topic) with overspill discussion transferred to the talk page and simple clerking duties to manage these non-bureaucratic processes. If RFA reform simply looks at candidature limits (edits, length of service etc.) that will not resolve the concerns you are describing but adopting some of these simple process changes might. Leaky Caldron 09:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on my talk page, you are still getting some things very, very wrong. You were neither 'taken to AN' nor hazed, please please try to understand that. A request for clarification on a point of order was taken to AN, and it's just unlucky for you that something you did was cited as an example, and you must accept the consensus that the action was inappropriate. Some people just can't discern between AN and AN/I. If sanctions were requested or required, the case would have been opened at the latter.
As for The process should be modified to prevent overkill when things suddenly turn sour, more appropriately the voters behaviour should be modified - and they can only do that themselves. They are wholly responsible for the drama they create. Change must either come from them, or they should accept that warnings and/or sanctions should be applied to show them that their participation at RfA is inappropriate and/or no longer wanted there, and it's high time some responsible editors took the initiative to police the process more rigorously. The voters who regularly disturb/disrupt RfA must surely be aware in their own minds that what they are doing is not only demoralising for the candidates and potential future candidates, but is causing far more serious collateral damage to Wikipedia as a whole. Is that what they really want? There's not much difference in that kind of behaviour from vandalising another website. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Boing, I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate you helping me with Hu12. I have no idea why he's doing these things, but my stomach is in knots right now over this. Thank you very much. :) --76.189.121.57 (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem - he's clearly in the wrong. It's late here in the UK and I need some sleep, so I suggest you leave things for now and if he goes any further I'll clear up and take appropriate action in the morning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI: I also added a comment to User talk:Hu12. I know from experience that working on multiple Mediawiki projects can cause confusion as to the applicable guideline - as they can vary from project to project; sometimes subtly, sometimes significantly. Based on that personal experience, I'm quite willing to assume good faith on the part of Hu12 and assume he just became confused due to the differing guideline at simple.wikipedia versus here at en.wikipedia. My guess is that he forgot to verify which project he was quoting for the relevant guideline, and became confused when others quoted a different wording than what he was seeing. I'm hoping that by pointing out the discrepancy on his talk page, this whole issue can be defused and everyone just move on to bettering Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your kind input, Barek. As the discussion on his talk page shows, Hu's overriding contention was, and apparently still remains, that IPs are not users, which is blatantly incorrect. I pointed out this misconception to him repeatedly by presenting the various applicable guidelines - WP:OWNTALK, WP:REMOVED, WP:USERSUBPAGE, WP:HUMAN, and What an unregistered user can't do - which all made clear that IPs are synonomous with unregistered users, have almost all the same rights as registered users, and that what I was doing with my talk page violated no rules. The guideline he cited, even if it were for en.wikipedia, are for "old" user talk pages and therefore wouldn't apply to this situation anyway. Further, he created an archive on my talk page without my knowledge or permission, which was clearly a violation of my right not to archive the content I removed. I will leave this matter in Boing's hands. Thank you, again, for your calming participation. :) --76.189.121.57 (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Barek, hopefully you've defused things - I was starting to get pretty angry with him. But as 76 says, even if the policy he was quoting was en.wikipedia, it still didn't support his claims. And while editors (including admins) can indeed make mistakes, what is disappointing here is that he would not even consider the possibility that he might be wrong when two other editors were telling him so and showing him the evidence - in that situation, I would have stopped and thought something like "Hang on, those two pieces of policy look contradictory - I need to think about this." To compound it, he repeated his inappropriate actions even after they had been disputed, and that's very bad show for an admin - we are supposed to be setting an example of how you should stop disputed actions and seek a settlement of the dispute. I guess we'll see how he responds. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:YatesSkatesI don't think userpages can be CSD'D. Could you take a look, and also at their sandbox. Ta. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, any of the G and U series CSD reasons can apply to user pages. They're clear attack pages, so I've deleted them, and I've reverted their vandalism to a template too and left an only warning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bidsar, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nawalgarh, Garhwal and Bidasar (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) 11:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Boing, I saw your note on my talk page about the AN. I commented there, but User:Nobody_Ent removed everything I wrote.[2] He did not talk to me about it first. Please see my talk page for Nobody's explanation. I felt that since I was the user who triggered Hu12's actions, it would be ok to give detailed comments about the situation. I will leave it up to you whether Nobody's revert should be reverted, so that all my comments are put back in the AN. Thanks. :) --76.189.121.57 (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 76, if, after reading my reasoning, you think it should go back put it back in. (I'd offer to do so myself but I'm about to go real-life for awhile) Nobody Ent 16:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, just saw that - I appreciate your kind comments, thanks. Ent has admitted he's technically wrong and you're welcome to put your comments back, but I can also see his point that a lengthy explanation might look like rubbing it in a bit, now that the consensus seems pretty firm. How about putting your detailed comments on your own Talk page and then posting something on the AN like "My description of the events is on my Talk page"? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Boing, I'll do what you suggested. I know Nobody meant well, but I feel he should have asked me about it first. I'm sorry for everything you've gone through with this issue and am so grateful for how you stood up for me. You're a really good guy for doing that, especially after my poor behavior a few days ago. Thank you. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Ent has put your comments back now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And no worries about it all - wanting to help editors is a big part of why I ran for admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say its nice to see an admin helping an IP even when it means going against another admin. --Malerooster (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, it's appreciated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
re: comments at ANI ... in all honesty, I also find trouting quite silly. To me, that's the point. If people acknowledge their missteps, it's a lighthearted way to alleviate the seriousness and tension, so that all parties can relax and get back to the important work of building an encyclopedia. Of course, if Hu12 doesn't acknowledge his error and continues to take a hard-line against both the broadly accepted guideline and against consensus, then that's a bigger issue to which trouting is neither beneficial nor appropriate.
As to your comment ... my concern is only partly with the "stop fucking around", and more with the overall sentence reading as a final ultimatum. I can't help but believe there were better ways to phrase it that didn't come across as a threat or like attempted intimidation. Granted, at the stage the conversation had reached, I think an escalation of some sort was required ... but there were both other DR avenues as well as less confrontational phasing that could have been used for what was, ultimately (in my mind) a minor issue from the perspective of all issues facing the project. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, he was absolutely refusing to even listen, which is a serious failing for an admin. My response was partly to try to shake him out of his intransigence and was actually meant as an ultimatum - but it didn't work, so I'm happy to accept it wasn't the best approach. But I think admins appearing to bully inexperienced and unregistered users is one of the things that seriously damages our reputation - and you must surely have seen the dissatisfaction that is so often expressed. It's that, the IDHT attitude (which seems more common amongst "old school" admins), that I think is very much not trivial - it's not so much this actual individual event. All it needed was "Oh, OK, I'll stop what I'm doing and think about it" - and "Oh, OK" is all it needs now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where trout-slapping is too feeble and too trite, feel free use {{Subst:User:Darwinbish/Stockfish}} for stockfish-walloping. More surprising effect (broken bones likely). Do not use on newbies, but I pride myself it's just right for IDHT admins. darwinbish BITE 23:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Wow, that is serious fish! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a written account of a face to face interaction with the artist, between just like a biography. Disputed on the neutrality, you might want to be specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yingjie.huang (talk • contribs) 17:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia cannot be used to host original research, which is what a "face to face interaction with the artist" would be - see WP:OR. Wikipedia can only be used to reflect material that is already published elsewhere in reliable sources - see WP:RS. There should be no editorial opinion or praise in an article, just objective sourced factual statements - have a look at WP:PEACOCK. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Bidasar, Sikar is another village in sikar district and Bidsar sikar is another village in sikar district. See the version history of the article. Chu86happychu 18:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'll have a look - but don't revert my changes as "vandalism" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, sorry, I can see they specific two places very close to each other - I've restored it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, restore the original version of the Bidasar, Sikar as its not the same village. I am observing the User Nawalgarh quit some time. He or she is just creating every time a new user name or without username and editing wiki articles mainly Bidsar. Finally many thank you. Chu86happychu 18:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Already done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice the following edit [3] why is there a conscious edit to hide the truth on this topic on wikipedia? I am trying to catch the attention of an admin with some integrity. I hope it is you. Every time Toddy1 does a controversial edit no one is watching, how is it that so many admins have supported so far his Zionist POV pushing? Surely any Admins with a Zionist POV have a vested interest in such matters and should be excluded from making decisions which stack the deck. For example decisions which include blocking users who have made tremendous efforts to build encyclopaedic quality articles and reverting their efforts. Have a look at what happened to the Crimean Karaites article just before you stepped in. Is the new version really better then the old? Did User:Kaz really deserve to be blocked without a review date after such constructive contributions? Notice how it is the same Admin who executed all this on behalf of User:Toddy1 whose edit history shows mainly non-constructive conflict and POV pushing. Something seriously twisted is going on here. It's as if there is money involved. 62.255.75.224 (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'm sorry, but it sounds like this would need quite a bit of time spent on it to properly understand, and I'm up to my eyes dealing with another issue at the moment (and I'm also trying to get my paid job done at the same time). So I'm going to have to pass on offering to help this time, sorry. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Virtually every admin says the same, meanwhile the Cambridge university scholarship researcher is blocked for shape-shifting reasons (on a block first decide why later policy), and the uneducated cult POV pushers run wild on WP further confusing the issue.62.255.75.224 (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(this IP is Kaz (talk · contribs) evading an indef-block Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ)
- OK, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about [4] it was completely unintentional - i think it was bit of lag in my browser refresh realigned the links. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, no prob! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a heads-up. I've started an AfD on Paradise World Tour and noticed in the creating user's talk page history that s/he created a Paradise Tour page last month that was speedy deleted because of overlap with a Coldplay tour article. You put it up for deletion, I believe. There's now also a New Beginnings: World Tour article that duplicates the Paradise World Tour article word-for-word. I can't find any mention of either of these tours in a Google search. --Batard0 (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Boing. :) Believe it or not, I am not writing about the Hu12 incident. Haha. I am actually writing because of new, repeated uncivil comments from User:Tribal44 again. She is the one that reported me a few days ago at ANI and accused me of being threatening and rude, etc. And then you blocked me. :P Anyway, one thing I never mentioned in that ANI is that Tribal44 repeatedly was calling me a troll in her edit comments after she would revert edits I made. I refrained from ever making those types of comments; I simply told her that I would report her to an admin if she continued making inappropriate edits (poorly sourced, etc), which then resulted in me being called threatening. In her various edits, she said, “You have no proof so knock it the hell off, troll”,[5] “Knock it off and stop trolling",[6] and “Please stop trolling”.[7] These were all about my edits of inappropriate vocal range content. That was then. But I never said anything about her uncivil name-calling in the ANI. Well, last night, I made an edit in Lea Michele, one of the singer articles I follow. A few minutes later, Tribal44 left a comment on my talk page and told me to stop stalking her.[8] I just removed her comment with the edit comment, “I follow articles, not users. "Stalking" is uncivil, therefore please do not post on my talk page again.”[9] I then posted the same comment on her talk page (since I wasn't sure if she would see it in on my edit history page).[10] She removed it and called me a jerk: "“Then don't post on my talk page or revert every edit I make then. Jerk.”[11] Whenever I make edits in these singer articles, I put detailed edit comments to explain them and don't include anything uncivil or name-calling. I just comment about why I'm making the edit. But Tribal44 has repeatedly called me a troll, stalker, jerk and other names. Based on the WikiProject Musicians discussion going on, plus the years of reverts of her content by other editors, she must know or needs to know that this isn't just one or two editors objecting to content she is adding. Also, if you look at Tribal44's edit history, you'll see these types of angry comments from her are not just towards me; she has made them to many other editors who have changed or removed her content. It goes back for years. You can see all the comments that include terms like "knock it off", "troll", "rude much?", "Stop deleting pictures!!!!!!", "good lord!", "ugh", "leave it alone!", "WTF" and even "Stop adding freakin' Miley Cyrus!". :p Her other big editing passion, besides adding vocal range/type to all singer articles, is to change photos in articles, which causes a lot of contention among other editors, thus triggering her angry edit comments and talk page comments towards them. She also will add content and actually admit in her edit comments that she doesn't know if it's appropriate to add, even if it's very poorly sourced. So, can you please help do something about this ongoing incivility? And to get her to understand that when others make edits or reverts to content she's added, especially when it's done in good faith and for valid reasons, she can't get angry and lash out at other editors and call them names. Thanks, Boing! Sorry to bother you with this. :) --76.189.121.57 (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I think this comment on Tribal44's user page sums up the problem: "FYI: I do not like it when random users delete referened vocal types and pictures off of the pages of singers. It is extremely annoying and rude. I will revert it back if need be. Also, I don't like to be constantly "watched" and being attacked for no apparent reason. If you don't like what I edit, then don't go on the page." So basically she's saying, "do not change my content." She considers changing or removal of her content to be "attacks." And it appears that when she uses the term "random users," she is talking about IPs. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since this thread is about me, I have a right to intervene here.
That IP is actually keeping tabs on all my edits and just basically harassing and bullying me. Each edit I make, he/she ALWAYS interferes and revert, even if its a small edit. And I am getting really sick and tired of his/her behavior towards me. I do not know what he/she has over me and why they are picking on me out of the blue, but this is a personal attack against me by all means.
I wouldn't be surprised if he/she added my user and talk page on their "watchlist" or "favorites".
If wikipedia has a block option, he/she will be the first to be on the list.
And since the IP user was so butthurt over my comments about them, which there were true, I am going to ask you yet again, 76.189.121.57, please stop acting like a nazi and please leave me alone.
Tribal44 (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]
|
