Jump to content

User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive XXI: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 618: Line 618:
<small>If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use [[User:SteveBaker/Userboxes/AwesomeWikipedianDay|this userbox]].</small>
<small>If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use [[User:SteveBaker/Userboxes/AwesomeWikipedianDay|this userbox]].</small>
|}
|}

== Please don't make general insults ==

Deacon, I know we've had our disagreements in the past but disagreements are one thing, being rude and insulting is another. In particular in your statement over at [[User:Avraham]]'s page your comment: ''"...and the rest of the bee-swarm that buzz in whenever a fellow "patriotic" tendie is in trouble."'' was fairly offensive. I assume by "the rest of the bee-swarm that buzz in" you are referring to myself and perhaps some of the Polish editors. Whatever your problems with [[User:Piotrus]], I don't particularly like being labeled a part of a "bee swarm" - which is obviously meant in a denigrating, condescending manner, and which I interpret as suggesting a herd mentality incapable of independent thought. Part of the problem here is exactly the fact that apparently you stereotype the editors of a particular nationality - Polish - in that way (despite your assurances to the contrary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=293606105&oldid=293602145]) which makes it difficult to even begin a constructive dialogue. Sometimes, the biases which we're not aware of are the strongest ones. I also resent the scare-quotes "patriotic" - the whole thing with Molobo had nothing to do with patriotism or anything else, it was about the really really sketchy tactics used against him and the corresponding messed up procedures. Likewise the neologism "tendie" is insulting. I'm not gonna ask for an apology here but I will ask you to watch that kind of language in the future. Thanks.[[User:Radeksz|radek]] ([[User talk:Radeksz|talk]]) 08:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:09, 3 June 2009

23:22 Monday 15 July 2024
The Signpost
4 July 2024
 
Archives:
I •
II •
III •
IV •
V •
VI •
VII •
VIII •
IX •
X •
XI •
XII

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Osbeorn Bulax

Updated DYK query On March 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Osbeorn Bulax, 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.
Gatoclass (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Syjytg

Please see User talk:Syjytg, especially my message yesterday. I have tried to be as "uninvolved" as possible but there was definitely disruption going on today so I have re-blocked for 24 hours. Also, I left a message with another admin seeking advice; your input would be appreciated - here, there, or anywhere :-) Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  13:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

GAN for Domhnall mac Raghnaill

Just a few small things, mainly a missing citation for a quotation. On hold. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Siward Barn

Updated DYK query On March 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Siward Barn, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Siward Barn, New England

Thanks for the interesting new articles on Siward Barn and New England (medieval) - I'd never heard of these before.--94.197.185.57 (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Glad you enjoyed! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Northman

Updated DYK query On March 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Northman, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Cnut the Great and Harthacnut

Hi, I see we're back to square one again in the naming issue, though it should be easy to resolve. I suspect a quick reference to the RHS Bibliography should do the trick. Cavila (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello - Carina Axelsson

Thank you for your assistance. When I mentioned "edit warring," I wasn't referring to 3RR, but more along the lines of the fact that it keeps going back and forth, usually with a separation of about a week in between; I've tried to be thorough and let the other party know via Talk pages the reasons why I keep reverting it, but she has taken it very personally and I felt that rather than feed the flames, it's better to "speak" to someone more experienced. I apologize if I brought it to the wrong spot, but I appreciate your assistance.

Best to you PR (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there'd normally be something on the talk page, Talk:Carina Axelsson, before further steps in dispute resolution were taken. Neither your nor your many opponents have posted there yet. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Query

Is there a reason you're avoiding my report? :-) Nja247 19:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't ignoring, it just took longer to read up on. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I know, I was just being impatient. Cheers. Nja247 19:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ælfhelm of York ... and Weston-on-Trent

Hi DoP, I saw your article about Ælfhelm of York and amongst the many facts I see that he is involved with Alvaston in 1004. The village where I live (which is within 5 miles of Alvaston) is signed into existance when Ethelred the Unraed gives the place to his henchman Morkar in 1009 (again about the same time as well). As this makes the village 1000 years old this year then interest is high. Any ideas about finding out more about Morkar? What I know is in the Weston article... Victuallers (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm betting it's Morcar? Try looking there. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't be him. Keynes' Atlas of Attestations has a thegn called Morcar witnessing a bunch of his charters, and who is the beneficiary of several, like Sawyer 922 (dated 1009!), Sawyer 924, Sawyer 928. A guy of that name, with one Sigeferth, the "chief thegn of the 7 [recte 5] boroughs" is killed, on the betrayal of the betrayal-fond Eadric Streona c. 1015. That makes sense given his closely to Mr The Unready. So they may be the same person, i.e. as Morcar 2. Baxter's Earls of Mercia probably has stuff about him (too tired to check). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh. I was actually hoping that Morcar led to a disambiguation page, which apparantly it doesn't. I don't got Baxter, so it's up to you to look (grins). Williams' Aethelred the Unready says (p. 74-75) that he was mentioned in the will of Wulfric, brother of Aelfhelm and son of Wulfrun, where he was a major beneficiary along with Burton Abbey and Aelfhelm. It looks like Morcar was married to Ealdgyth (snickers) the daughter of Aelfthryth, the sister of Wulfric and Aelfhelm. Morcar in 1009 got lands in Derbyshire from Aethelred. Morcar had a brother Sigeferth. Page 112 has Morcar receiving land in Derbyshire in 1011 and 1012 from Aethelred again. Page 120 Williams speculates that Morcar may have been involved in swinging support in Northumbria behind Swein. In 1015, Morcar and Sigeferth were betrayed and murdered by Eadric, and Aethelred took both brothers lands, and imprisoned Sigeferth's widow. Edmund Ironside then freed the widow and married her. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, we prolly got enough info on this page alone for a stub. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Blimey guys! I am impressed. I came back today to look for the "sorry too busy .... try the British museum.... and as you say there is enough for a stub! Who gonna write it? Thanks.... looks brill. Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

List of nationalities ie, Greek

Hello, I noticed your comment on the list of editors nationalities that Husond has produced. You seem to think it is not a bad idea. I have to ask you, if I were to compile a similar list of those voting in the British Isles naming dispute where there have been accusations of British bias, would it be acceptable? Jack forbes (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The information is useful in both cases, but doesn't need to be compiled in such a manner. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
How would this information be better compiled? Incidentally, as you may have noticed I don't agree with the list. A (bad) precedent would be set throughout wikipedia. Jack forbes (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, it prolly shouldn't be done the way Husond did it. The information is usually quite obvious in any case. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ælfhelm of York

Updated DYK query On March 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ælfhelm of York, 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.
Royalbroil 12:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hemming and Hemming's cartulary...

I haven't been able to turn up pages on either of these, but figured I'd check in with you in case you know of one. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

G Books. Pertinent info on ODNB article about Hemming of Worcester. This help? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that'll help, but I'm more concerned that there isn't a wiki article on either yet. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, unfortunately, wikipedia's coverage of everything to do with historical writing in this period is very limited. I think of the scores of works listed in Gransden's Historical Writing, wikipedia has articles on just a handful. I'm am gonna try to remedy this though. I'll keep you updated. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
got them done yesterday. Hemming isn't going to be long enough for GA, (he's barely a start class) but the cartulary has promise... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Quick work. There was me planning a ten-line article on Hemming! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Awaiting explanations

You as an administrator have some explaining to do. You imposed the restriction to Vacio with what base? Did you just check that there was some report with diff (all of which out of context) and placed that restriction? And this diff of yours is, to say the least, very weird. You are comparing Vacio's behavior with Azturkk, who got away with this on the basis that it was only possible in spite of the fact that they have done the same thing as him (the him being Azturkk), with the same broken grammar, which is nearly nothing other than edit warring. Check his contribution, besides two insignificant edits in a talkpage, this editor has reverted, removed without most of the time even an edit summary and zilch in the talkpage and totally ignored (and now removed) other's comments. And I hope you have better arguments than Ibrahim Khalil Khan. As the main point is that Vacio discussed all his changes (I will not waste my time exposing yet again the way Grandmaster is distorting this). Of course, unlike Vacio who discussed his changes and edits in a civil manner in the talkpages, Elsanturk who made all those reverts in the last days [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] did not even bother witting one line in the talkpages... only writing comments in the summaries which shows that he was clueless of what was being discussed. And your claim that Elsanaturk's violation was three days ago is funny. Now please explain this, was it not you who added this? Was it not you who answered twice to Meowy's request, declining it for something which happened a week prior to when it was filled?

So let me get it straight, Meowy was blocked for an incident which happened a week ago. And the main responsible party of the edit war, which has contributed zilch in the talkpage and acted as a meatpuppet (Baku87 got a block for less for having done the same thing) got away with it. Vacio was placed under restriction for having made few reverts and he was civil and discussed all of his edits in the talkpage and again he was reverted by the same user, who again has not added anything in the talkpage nor discussed anything. This user now is excused because the edits were done 3 days ago. It's not that I am surprised of the inconsistency and the nonsense coming from administrators but that you guys come back with more inconsistency and nonsense is what I have a problem with. Either enforce the rules fairly or don't enforce them at all. - Fedayee (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

@Fedayee: How about assuming a bit of good faith here? I don't have any knowledge of the edits and only a little knowledge of the admin being excoriated here, but...I think you'll find such questioning will go a little better if you are not so confrontational.  Frank  |  talk  21:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
You have the power to block users and place them under restriction. The only power I have against the questionable way you administrators impose your power is to higher my "voice" because then I will receive some form of reply... if not for the content of the message, at least for the tone I have used to show my dissatisfaction. Wiki history has unfortunately shown that otherwise, users are ignored. - Fedayee (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way; even admins I don't particularly respect are usually here primarily to help the project, not wield their "power". As for "Wiki history", I suggest you take action if you feel a specific admin is being capricious. Admins are certainly not infallible, and if there are problems, something should be done.  Frank  |  talk  17:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April Fool's DYK for New England (medieval)

Updated DYK query On April Fool's, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New England (medieval), 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. Smiley

Thank you for your contribution to the April Fool's Day fun! Royalbroil 00:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just curious...

...about this indentation... Don't we usually just tag these with a {{spa}} note and leave it to the crats to figure it out? –xeno (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

cheers - I've swapped it around. Just because there's no indication that the !vote was made in bad faith, or what-have-you. –xeno (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

re User:Sickofdoublestandards

Actually, his last revert was after I had posted two warning messages to his talk page, but if admins like you and Alansohn are going to monitor the situation, that's fine. I only got involved because I was monitoring "recent changes" and his addition was pretty clearly the work of someone with an axe to grind. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if he continues drop me a note (in case aI don't see it myself). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Block of User:Matthew

Hi there, I was investigating an unblock request on the other user (Magnius (talk · contribs)), but I noticed that you blocked Matthew (talk · contribs) as well. I was under the impression that NFCC violation removals were an exception to the 3RR, and that his removal did appear to be valid in that the image, at least in my opinion, failed NFCC#8. Of course, I'm not as well-versed in the dispute, so I dunno what all the details were, but I figured I'd just drop a heads up in case I missed something. :P Anyway, cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 14:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A valid exception is for reverting content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy; in this case, "unquestionably" doesn't really fit. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Except that it is inherent upon those wishing to insert such material to prove that NFCC is fulfilled. Until that point, the material should not be in the article, not the other way round. Black Kite 18:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
in my novice opinion, if established editors are disagreeing over an interpretation of NFCC#8, then it stands to reason that it's not an "unquestionable violation". –xeno (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Suspicion

Hello Deacon! I, and XPTO, suspect Sifilis122 of being a sockpuppet of Cosialscastells (see this). This suspicion is based in his general attitude (disruptive editing, personal harassment, same POV agenda - see his edits in Spanish Empire) and specifically in this edits: Portuguese Restoration War (Cosialscastells); Portuguese Restoration War (by sock Datiusnerva; notice the addition of the same sources and external link); War of the Portuguese Succession (Datiusnerva); Portuguese Empire (Datiusnerva; notice the edit sumary "Portugal was ruled by the branch of spanish habsburgs, not the austrian one's", which clearly brings to mind Sifilis122's sumaries); Philip II of Spain (Datiusnerva; same sources added). In fact don't you also find it suspicious that a new editor, with only 1 day in wikipedia and a total of 47 edits, perfectly knows his way around and shows the same behaviour (even going to the point of having the same sources and using the same arguments and even words!) as a known and disruptive master-sockpuppet? This needs looking into. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've invited Black Kite to review your comments, as he has previously dealt with this banned user. I'll probably review it thoroughly myself later. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of opening a new case in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cosialscastells/Archive. Should I not do that? The Ogre (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, create a new SPI. I can't help much as I was only the blocking admin for a fairly standard block (edit-warring, incivility, refusal to Get The Point). The new editor does quack quite a bit, though. Black Kite 17:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it seemed there could be enough for a Duck block, but bothering the CUs for a SPI might be worth it, for the sake of certainty and in case he's got other sleepers lying about. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll do it then. Cheers and thanks! The Ogre (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Done at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cosialscastells/Archive. There won't be any problem because it's an archive, will there? Thanks. The Ogre (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You'll prolly need to move it out of the archive to an active case. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It's now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cosialscastells. Is that ok? The Ogre (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not fully up-to-date on the bureaucratic idiosyncrasies of SPI, but it looks ok and the location is now correct. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks once again. The Ogre (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit war resuming on Bible prophecy

Now that your ban on user:Back2back2back has expired, he has recommenced edit-warring. My attempts to build on a correct version of the article are being replaced with some garbage involving Tyre being rebuilt by time-travelling Romans several centuries before imperial Rome existed, and similar silliness. --Robert Stevens (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

...Hmmm. Maybe he's now backed off, no revert for a while. --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Prolly because he was listing you on WP:AN/3 (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Robert_Stevens_reported_by_User:Back2back2back_.28Result:_.29). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Mixed acronyms

I believe you mixed up your acronyms here (BK->MZM). –xeno (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol, cheers! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem =) –xeno (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Thored

Updated DYK query On April 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thored, 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.
Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy

I was initially satisfied to see that User:DreamGuy received a significant block for his most recent of many wikipedia violation, however after reading his request to be unblocked I am concerned that he will be unblocked all too soon, and that I will then begin to feel his obsessive wrath of harassment and wikistalking. What jpgordon wrote is true: "If we just unblock "every time", it's hardly preventative". Please tell me what it means if DreamGuy "voluntarily accepts a 3 month 1rr restriction"? What is an 1rr restriction? Thank you. Unionsoap (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It was me that said that. A 1rr restriction is a restriction which limits the editor in question to 1 revert per article per day. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please assume more good faith

I have asked others to review some of your recent edits here. I'd appreciate it if you could review your behavior, particularly in light of WP:CIV/WP:AGF/WP:NPA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is a question of mine you have missed. I wonder what made you stumble upon my edits to battle of Wilno (1655)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
What's your reason for asking, Piotrus? I don't normally chronicle how and when I watchlist various articles. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I am asking before I don't understand why you appeared there and why do our interactions lead to so much uncivil accusations and assumptions. Perhaps we should try a mediation? Would you be willing to do so? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Edits like the one you made to AE don't help things. Ask me again after April 17. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Why? We have currently more then one ongoing unproductive (to say the least) discussion. Unless we are going to withdraw from them, I think we should prioritize trying to patch the things. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I have RL things impending for around that date, and beginning any such thing before then would thus be pointless, as I wouldn't have the time to post anything. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Still, you seem to have plenty of time to continue your arguments on talk and elsewhere: [11], [12], [13]. I again ask you to consider a mediation instead.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I shouldn't really though. Won't have time to commit to any such exercise until after the 17th. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming discussions

Hiya Deacon. I've absolutely no problem, with allowing outsiders to decide those article names. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, as you're Canadian you must surely know you'd be an insider too ... as a Canadian, you are essentially English. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Which is why (in such a vote), I'd volunteer to step aside. Note my statement at the Collaboration, I'm willing to accept any result. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
We could ask these guys. Choose a group of village elders to decide. They'd be outsiders, right? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
That would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opinions are requested

I would appreciate your opinions and contributions at an essay I am working on: User:Chillum/Discrediting your opponent. It is only a stub, but I think a significant essay can be written on the subject.

The more brains I have helping me the better I can get this concept across to people. More brains can also be a potent sanity check. I have a lot of respect for your ability to understand logical fallacies so I think your input would be invaluable. Chillum 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Dr. Dan and the AE board

Hey there, I see that there is a bit of a tift going on at the AE board [14] between yourself and Piotrus. I'm here randomly to see if we can work this out.

I think that Piotrus is correct in making a new subsection for your complaints against Dr Dan not just by policy, but it's really in your best interest to have that as a subsection if you want to bring that particular user to the attention of the powers that be. Your point, in my evaluation, is correct about said user's editing but I think it gets lost in your post and rightly deserves its own section. Maybe you can reword it and make it its own right?

Either way, it clearly by policy deserves its own section. Let's not revert and work this out. :)

Happy editing to you. Keegantalk 05:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Keegan, it's not good practice and is contrary to widely accepted etiquette to move other people's comments (esp. when you are representing opposing arguments) around and slap POV-headings over their comments. Headings are there to assist navigation, and there is no such argument here. There are enough headings in that thread already. "Edit-wars" on the matter are avoided when such practice and etiquette is adhered to. Quite simple really, I think, and not too much to ask. Happy editing to you too. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I see how muddling your post and train of thought can be offensive. On a personal level, I wouldn't care, but it's your perogative to of course since it's your name under license. What I'm saying is, there is truth the what the point of the edit was as opposed to the action that occurred. You do need a new thread to bring in third parties in Arb enforcement. Turn a nice phrase in your own words and move on from the fact that it was Piotrus who [colloquially] done it. It looks like you two have issues of your own to work out. That's none of my business so my point is that a new section is required. That my 2¢, and probably all that it's worth. Nothing more from my end, happy editing to you. Keegantalk 05:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it could be offensive, but more relevantly here it's confusing and misleading. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That section is about Dr. Dan, not anybody else. If you want to discuss Radeksz or me, please do it in a separate section. There is no reason an admin or arbitrator reviewing my complain about Dr. Dan should care about Radeksz. Please, refactor the comments and section headings (or start a new AE request against me and Radeksz) so that topics not about Dr. Dan are not in the section about him. That's what confusing: that in a section about Dr. Dan, about 80% of content is about Radeksz. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, as you know already the discussion about Radeksz only came up because of your evidence concerning Dr Dan's interaction with the latter. I did not introduce a discussion of Radeksz, rather, Radeksz did by asking me to elaborate, which is a normal part of discussion. That's why we call it discussion. The evidence posted thereafter remains relevant to the Dr Dan request because it allows the reviewing admin to have a better overview of the context. I'm experienced in dealing with AE requests in other areas. There's just no need to refactor any comments, and doing so would be confusing. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You have brought Radeksz into this, by posting in your opening comment "he is not by any means half as problematic a user as, for instance, User:Radeksz whom Piotrus has gone to a lot of trouble to protect", to which Radeksz responded. Discussion of Radeksz, however, is irrelevant there; this thread is about Dr. Dan, not about edits Radeksz made 2 months ago and in a situation where he didn't interact with Dr. Dan. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm afraid I disagree with your assessment of the relevancy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Commenting on style here, generally each user/incident under discussion should have its own heading. If breaking it out under a case heading with 2 subheadings (one for each user complained about) works, that would be ok. But yes, generally it should be 1 thread for 1 incident. MBisanz talk 06:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
1 incident. How are diffs from November 2008 that Deacon cites there against Radeksz relevant to my complain about recent (last week) incivility by Dr. Dan? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This is explained on the thread. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't have time for a mediation, here's a simple solution: please stop commenting about me and discussing me. In return, I can promise you that just like I've always done, I will never comment or discuss you. How does that sound? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Deacon, it's me again

Hi Deacon, I saw what's been happening on the Carina Axelsson page, and I was afraid of this, which is why I reported it before. Unionsoap, who "warned" DreamGuy, has been accusing me of having a COI for this page, which is completely, completely unfounded and absurd; I do a bit of editing around royalty issues and know a bit about this person. As I mentioned before, each time I tried to speak to him/her on his/her talk page about his/her fandom of Axelsson, he/she got completely bent out of shape and started hurling accusations. It seems like we have a crazed fan there - not like that's ever happened on Wiki before, to be sure!

I edited the page further, since the consensus was that Axelsson is notable and that the entry stays. However, I added some items as to why Axelsson is considered controversial, which is one of the defenses that Unionsoap used to state a "Strongly Keep." I'm about as certain as it's possible to be that once Unionsoap comes out of his/her penalty box, he/she will start editing again to polish up the reputation of the subject of the article.

I don't know if there's anything to be done here at this time, but I thought I would give you a heads-up. It might even need to be locked. Who knew that the girlfriend of one of thousands of minor German princelings, whose boyfriend paid for her books to be published, would generate this? Silly life.

Thanks, and be well PR (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Puzzled at ANI

I noticed WP:ANI#Use of guideline pages for nationalist agendas? Sorry I could not make head or tail of this. Are you asking that people not have that kind of discussion on guideline talk pages like WT:NCGN? Where should the discussion be held? EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I had to be very vague to avoid outcries of indignation. But, to the point, I believe this guideline page (vide inclusion of Wilno) is being hijacked to promote a nationalist agenda, and want other neutrals to do something so that I'm not faced with a choice between being dragged into an edit-war or leaving it alone. It is a guideline page, and these are there to provide uncontroversial commentary on general wikipedia practice, not for other purposes. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I refactored the text for clarity. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Siward, Earl of Northumbria

I have prepared a GA review for the above article. Check it out, and ping me with any Qs - I will drop in regularly on the article to see how it is going. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, cheers! I'll get to it in the next wee while. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks like you have sailed off the edge of wikipedia! Or did some annoying Real Life happen? Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Vilnius compromise

I agree we need a rule similar to the Gdanzig vote "name by period". I would also like for this to end in a constructive way. I suggest starting such a discussion on WP:NCGN, where several users mentioned a similar solution. I think we can have a few more timeframes; I find the post-1975 solution acceptable (but what about the war itself?), but I am afraid the "Before 1795, Vilnius" will require more discussion (perhaps if Wilno is not feasible, a Vilna could also be used for that period, per Truce of Vilna, which has proven to be a stable compromise?). PS. Please see my question to you above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what do you mean by war. Pre-1795 cut-off dates would be 1569 and 1697. Polish replaced Ruthenian as the language of the GDL chancellery in 1697. I would suggest Wilno for 1697-1795; Vilna for the preceding dates till the one that can reasonably demonstrate widespread usage of Lithuanian. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
And what concessions would you make? I believe that Wilno is the correct term for the entire period of pre-1795, and Vilnius is not. If you ware willing to propose a solution that is not "Vilnius for the entire pre-1795 period", then perhaps we can compromise. If not, then there is little point in restating where we stand. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I do think your proposal is a decent start, however we will need to iron out the pre-1795 period. Btw, I mispoke above: I meant I believe WIlno is correct for the period of 1569-1795, and Vilna is the correct term for the entire period of pre-1569. As I said before, I would be willing to consider if Vilnius is not correct for part of the pre-1569 period if it can be shown it was used - but my readings indicate that it never a dominant writing language until the 19th century. Still, pre-1569 history of Lithuania is not a subject were Polish and Lithuanians editor clash often, so I am not interested in death-or-life struggle over the pre-1569 naming, particulary if we can reach a reasonable compromise on the post-1569 issue.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
What suggestion should I propose? I don't understand, I thought I explained myself clearly above, and we were discussing your suggestion for naming by period. PS. I finally figured what you meant by "war itself" (wouldn't hurt if you linked a diff in the future). I mean the 1939-1945 period of WWII, for which I'd suggest Wilno (as it was a Polish / Yiddish speaking city until the Holocaust in Lithuania and repatriations of Poles) but I am open to discussion. I hope that this period will not prove too problematic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Any proposal I draw will be tainted by the fact that I, Piotrus, drew it. There was some polonization occuring as early as 15th century but nothing worth spending too much time and effort over. Could you tell me what would you see now as a reasonable proposal? I would think that if YOU can draft something that I would find reasonable, the other side would would be much more likely to except it as if we were to do it the other way around. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done

The 50 DYK Medal   
Thank you, D of P, from me for the help and thank you from both the wiki and me for your contributions to DYK. Pleased to see that your efforts are continuing as the 100 template is a really cool shade of gold :-) Well done Victuallers (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Note:Morcar (died 1015) is the q for dyk and is creditted to the 3 of us Victuallers (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!

Hi I noticed you blocked this editor before, however he is being disruptive on talk pages again. Namely Talk:Republic of Ireland posting irrelevant posts trying to antagonize a statement from another editor. He refuses to acknowledge any warnings that talk pages are not forums and continues with his bad behaviour. Can you sort this out? Thanks. MusicInTheHouse (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid a further report of this user's behaviour is necessary. The user has a long history of warnings and bans, yet appears to be unwilling to change the behaviour that has led to those. He is now engaged in an edit war involving a personal attack on another user whose comment, although maybe a little combative, was not in itself a personal attack. Please see Talk:British Isles. How long can this behaviour be allowed to continue? I have not even bothered to leave a message on his talk page warning him of this referral as a quick look at that page shows such messages are only met by insults. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Bov violating his 9/11 topic ban again

Hello Deacon. After your topic ban, Bov has continued to edit in violation of the ban. He made these three edits to 9/11 articles or Talk pages on April 13: [15], [16] and [17].

What would you think about a long block? I checked out the blocks and restrictions logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories, and the longest block there was for two months one week. Since Bov comes back again and again to restore the same paragraph in a variety of 9/11 articles, he seems to be a new standard in single-purpose accounts. I believe that either three months or indef might be considered, with the understanding that if he agrees to respect his topic ban he might be unblocked. What do you think? EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I think the longest block listed there was for a week. I know that long blocks for POV-warriors are sometimes endorsed by editor consensus at WP:AN, and I suppose that this could be the way to go. A topic ban is not working in Bov's case. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Morcar (died 1015)

Updated DYK query On April 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Morcar (died 1015), 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.
Royalbroil 00:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Moors # Seensawsee's edits # The facts

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Moors#The_facts. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Your proficiency and neutrality would be appreciated. The Ogre (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Tumbleweed.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tumbleweed.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Tumbleweed.gif

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Tumbleweed.gif has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[18][19]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because images on Wikipedia need to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License or another free license, which allow anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Editor review

Hello there. I remembered you from my previous RfA, where you had expressed some concerns and felt that you would be unable to support. I wondered if you could comment on my current editor review, as I feel it would be best to see if those who hadn't thought of me as highly of me five months ago now think I have improved. NuclearWarfare (Talk) (How am I doing?) 20:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I need your opinion about a problem with editor DreamGuy

Dear sir: I have suffered an incident of offenssive language by user DreamGuy, that seems to have previously engaged in such behaviors (see [20] and [21]). This individual is already under a "civility restriction" that he seems to ignore. I would like to know your opinion about the best way to further proceed. Thank you in advance, --MaeseLeon (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


Your GA nomination of Ælfhelm of York

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Ælfhelm of York you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 14 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. SilkTork *YES! 15:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've left some comments on the review page. Regards SilkTork *YES! 19:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Have been away and just got to the backlogged Siward. I'll get to Ælfhelm soon. :) Cheers ST. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia 2

Hi Deacon. Just letting you know that I mentioned at the current Macedonia 2 arbitration case some comments you made at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. See Workshop#Answer by Ev. - Best, Ev (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


Your GA nomination of Oslac of York

The article Oslac of York you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Oslac of York for things needed to be addressed. Vicenarian (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thored on hold

The ISBNs need fixing, when this is done, should be no problem for GA Jezhotwells (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I believe Mr Mclellan beat me to it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge 3RR into Edit War?

Hi, you were previously involved in a discussion about merging 3RR into WP:EW; please comment at WT:3RR#Merge 3RR into Edit War?. cheers, Rd232 talk 13:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilfrid refs...

Need page ranges for the entire articles for the Charles-Edwards and Woolf Venturian Hegemony refs. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Yes, I just copied those refs from the Oengus article, as that's the only place I found them formatted (though nowhere to current standards, so I apologize for my laziness!). The page ranges are in the notes, in all cases I cited the entire articles. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilfrid...

Did you see anything else that needed doing on the poor guy? He's about ready for the big time (just a few image issues to round up) and then 7500 words of Anglo-Saxon bishop is ready for FAC, assuming you don't see anything glaringly obvious that needs doing. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I will read this, Ealdgyth. I've been looking forward to what you guys produced here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record.
I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Austria

I was under the impression that entities such as the Holy Roman Empire were, in essence, a confederation of nations, rather than Hitler's ideal—one completely unified German nation. If I am incorrect, please accept my apologies. Hayden120 (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

THe HRE was a sovereign monarchy, under which Austria was a central part. It fragmented "irreversibly" after the Reformation, but as a medieval state it was as unified as most other medieval states (more than places like Kievan Rus and France). The Archduke of Austria was king of Germany until Napoleon destroyed the legal existence of the institution. This is not Nazi propaganda, but history. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Old English naming conventions

I hate to see Ethelred of Wessex residing beside Æthelred the Unready. Should we have naming conventions for this sort of thing? Srnec (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice in theory, but always seem to stall in practice. I do think Æ should usually be Æ though, as otherwise E, A and Ae variations are confusing (i.e. Ethelred, but Athelstan, despite both having the Æthel- prefix). I moved no. 1. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

From Eluchil

Where did you find the consensus to move Ethelred the Unready to Æthelred the Unready. I don't see any on the Talk page and would oppose the move on the grounds that Ethelred is the more common spelling even in cases where the ligature could be available. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Same place I found the consensus to keep it there. We have BRD for a reason. Anyways, Æthelred is better IMHO because 1) it doesn't cause cognitive dissonance with other Old English names and 2) it is the form used by historians. Ethelred is still current as a name there is no denying in some areas, but it's now a tad archaic. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Northman, son of Leofwine

Updated DYK query On June 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Northman, son of Leofwine, 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.
Royalbroil 08:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy Deacon of Pndapetzim's Day!

Deacon of Pndapetzim has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Deacon of Pndapetzim's day!
For your excellent administrative and DYK contributions,
enjoy being the Star of the day, Deacon of Pndapetzim!

Cheers,
bibliomaniac15
05:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

Please don't make general insults

Deacon, I know we've had our disagreements in the past but disagreements are one thing, being rude and insulting is another. In particular in your statement over at User:Avraham's page your comment: "...and the rest of the bee-swarm that buzz in whenever a fellow "patriotic" tendie is in trouble." was fairly offensive. I assume by "the rest of the bee-swarm that buzz in" you are referring to myself and perhaps some of the Polish editors. Whatever your problems with User:Piotrus, I don't particularly like being labeled a part of a "bee swarm" - which is obviously meant in a denigrating, condescending manner, and which I interpret as suggesting a herd mentality incapable of independent thought. Part of the problem here is exactly the fact that apparently you stereotype the editors of a particular nationality - Polish - in that way (despite your assurances to the contrary [22]) which makes it difficult to even begin a constructive dialogue. Sometimes, the biases which we're not aware of are the strongest ones. I also resent the scare-quotes "patriotic" - the whole thing with Molobo had nothing to do with patriotism or anything else, it was about the really really sketchy tactics used against him and the corresponding messed up procedures. Likewise the neologism "tendie" is insulting. I'm not gonna ask for an apology here but I will ask you to watch that kind of language in the future. Thanks.radek (talk) 08:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive_XXI&oldid=294126308"