User talk:Sennen goroshi

Sockpuppet templates on User talk:Chessy999

Hi, I reveted you here. While I agree with the sentiment, it's a little too much to stick the template at the top of the talk page, I think. This thing will work itself out in the next few days. I've done this before; the wait for an admin to deal with the case is frustrating. Regards, Darkspots (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's no problem at all. I guess the templates are not really important, the report and the final result are what counts. Thanks for making the report, I guess I might have to learn how to report sock accounts someday. BTW, is there a tool that will compare edits between 2 users? Not KATE, that just brings up stats of my most edited pages, but kinda 2 account KATE (it is called KATE isnt it?) so I can compare 2 accounts, see if the edits match or not.Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. I just do it by feel, mostly. I knew nothing about SirIsaacBrock; I just had a hunch that this was a sock account. The account was too committed to material he didn't add to the article originally. The article talk page link to the offsite article was the kicker--someone had been banned who'd edited the article before. Figuring out what the account was no problem at that point, and then it's just methodically opening 500 edits from each user (if you sort the edits by namespace, just looking at the article space, it helps a lot) and comparing.

The whole thing is really a shame. Darkspots (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was the outcome of Chessy999's civility incident? Finell (Talk) 07:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The report does not seem to be on the ANI board anymore, I assume it is hiding in an archive somewhere.

Currently there is a sockpuppet report concenring Chessy999 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/SirIsaacBrock_%283rd%29 Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SirIsaacBrock (3rd) is waiting for administrator action. User:Chessy999 has not made any edits since 30 April, so I assume that the account has been abandoned. This was a useful exercise, though--if the account gets indef blocked as a sockpuppet, further accounts that edit disruptively can possibly be linked to it by the Checkuser process. Darkspots (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of (Sri Lanka) Princess Diana Institute of Peace

A tag has been placed on (Sri Lanka) Princess Diana Institute of Peace, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how (Sri Lanka) Princess Diana Institute of Peace is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:(Sri Lanka) Princess Diana Institute of Peace saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please feel free to use deletion review, but do not continue to repost the article if it is deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diana, Princess of Wales

Your edits on this page are not helpful and you have made uncivil edit summaries. Please do not edit war in this article. Note that notability guidelines don't limit article content. --neonwhite user page talk 20:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the background and you have been consistantly edit warring on this article and are now removing source content that is there by consenus. I can't see any legitimate reason to remove it and the edits are not helpful, therefore they are vandalism. I highly recommned leaving it alone if you disagree with the consensus discuss it properly instead of reverting good edits. You're edit summary included accusations of sock puppetry and COI which are both innappropriate. Post replies here not on my page. --neonwhite user page talk 21:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

You've been warned about this. the next time it goes to ANI. --neonwhite user page talk 21:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more time. It is not vandalism, it is at best a content dispute. Vandalism would be blanking the page, or replacing text with "bjksdhfjk"

There is COI, the user bermudatriangle as already had one of his sockpuppets banned within the last few days for attacking me, so I consider my summary to be acceptable. The article is non-notable. leave it alone. Sennen goroshi (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

vandalism is any action that does not improve the page. You are removing content that is sourced and relevent with out a good reason. Your summary is not acceptable according to policy. Assuming good faith is not negotiable. COI does not stop people from editing an article. Other editors have been consulted and have agreed with the inclusion. Diana, Princess of Wales is certainly a notable article. Continue the discussion here. --neonwhite user page talk 21:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism is an exception to the 3 revert rule. Consider this a final warning for you disruptive edits, personal attacks and lack of good faith. I have entered this dispute as a uninvolved third opinion to help end the edit warring and whilst other editors have acted in good faith and helped to develop the article. You have acted with nothing but incivility. --neonwhite user page talk 21:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections. (WP:NNC) --neonwhite user page talk 21:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest respect, I think I should say that you are a little confused as to what is and what is not vandalism. but don't take my word for it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not

I am sure you came into this article with the best intentions, however with both messed up a little by pushing eachother to the verge of a 3RR violation, perhaps it is a good thing, we know that neither of us can edit the article for a while, so time to calm down is good. In this time period, I would suggest that you look at the article, and ask yourself if adding that piece of text actually improves the article in any way - I honestly dont think it does, there are so many highly notable aspects of Diana's life, death and legacy - the institute of peace is about as unimportant as it gets. Either way, we have time to reflect, I will be doing so. Sennen goroshi (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly vandalism, considering your history of edits wars on this page and no valid reason has been given for the deletion of content. Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. There is no reason why it should not be there, it is sourced and it is info relevent to the article subject as far as i can see. If you object it needs to be discussed properly on the talk page and cease the edit warring and removal of other people edits. It isn't contructive and is disruptive. As i have said before reverting vandalism is except from the 3RR rule --neonwhite user page talk 21:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chican@s

I see you've changed a few instances of chican@ to Mexican American. In cases where said individual was born in USia to Mexican parents (or otherwise has a strong sense of Mexican heritage) is not the term chican@ more specific and, hence, preferred in this encyclopedic setting? Nklatt (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Sorry about being so sarcastic about your message the other day. I meant no offense. Sgt. bender (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. take care Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iwazaki for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please mediate

Hello. The Kofun Period of Japan has received destruction[1]. I need your mediation. Could you help? --Princesunta (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little busy right now, but I shall try to give it some attention after work tomorrow. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sock user has been banned today morning. This notice will save your time. --Appletrees (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Appletrees, if it is a sock, then I see no need to waste my time. Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sock puppet case

No, it's okay, if you want to respond to that case. I will remove the archive tags until you say what you want to say. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary plural

In British English, in the case of football clubs, musical groups, etc., the verb form used is referred to as the discretionary plural. This allows for the use of singular or plural depending on the context. In the sentence "Manchester United Football Club [is/are] an English football club", the verb form that would sound most correct is the singular form. However, in the sentence "Manchester United [is/are] the Premier League champions", the plural seems more appropriate. If you have any more questions about grammar in British English, please feel free to ask. – Pee Jay 18:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for quoting scripture to me. However, in the sentence "Manchester United Football Club is an English football club", the singular is used as the subject of the sentence is the club as a singular entity. Surely you must see this? – Pee Jay 21:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manucho

"Manucho Gonçalves" is not the player's real name. That name was used by a minority of news sources when he first came to the fore, but he is now more commonly known just as "Manucho". By the way, your reference to David Beckham is an ill-conceived one. Of course Beckham isn't commonly referred to as "Becks", as that's just informal. In the case of Manucho, however, he and many other Portuguese-speaking people often go by a single name in place of their (often long) full names. Now, can you revert your edit please? – Pee Jay 17:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is this better? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manchester_United_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=213506861 Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. I think you are now being intentionally confrontational. The player's name is Mateus Alberto Contreiras Gonçalves, which is commonly shortened to Manucho, the name he is almost always known by. Please make the Manchester United article reflective of this. – Pee Jay 17:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but looking at a couple of the links on the bottom of the article, makes what you are saying a little hard to agree with.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_2997132,00.html

http://www.manutd.com/default.sps?pagegid={B4CEE8FA-9A47-47BC-B069-3F7A2F35DB70}&newsid=517365

Im sorry, but I think its better my way.

Oh one more thing, if you are trying to gain adminship, then perhaps you should learn to assume good faith, rather than accusing people of being "intentionally confrontational"

Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you think your way is better. Everyone thinks their way is better. However, those references are from a time when Manucho was still coming to the fore. More recent references simply refer to him as Manucho. By the way, now I think you're just trying to bait me into saying something incriminatory. – Pee Jay 17:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, at no point in that ManUtd.com reference does the author refer to the player as either "Manucho Gonçalves" or "Mateus Gonçalves", both of which you claim are names he is commonly known by. – Pee Jay 18:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Alex Ferguson believes new signing Manucho Goncalves can become a star of the future for Manchester United. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said the ManUtd.com reference, not the Sky Sports reference. – Pee Jay 18:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say otherwise? And anyway, I consider Sky Sports to be a reliable and verifiable source . BTW good luck with the RFA Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, but it doesn't look like the RFA is going to succeed. Anyway, let's not get off topic here. For every one reference you can find that states his name as "Manucho Gonçalves", I could probably find three or four that just say "Manucho", so I think we both know which way this one is going to fall. – Pee Jay 18:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chants

It has nothing to do with being crude, but it should not be added without a citation from a reliable source, which does not include fans' common knowledge. Kit (association football) is a Featured Article and therefore is expected to be of a certain standard, which includes all material being supported by reliable sources...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cited now, don't think the fact that it says "bastard" rather than "wanker" is a big issue, I've heard both with equal frequency down the years..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

林檎木

林檎木 has been blocked again. Somebody needs to buy the kid a muzzle! -RatSkrew (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticized

One word: spellchecker. Plus, if the article is following British English, people "sitting over" the article would correct it anyway.--Jahilia (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]