User talk:Imbris

archives¹ archives² archives³ discussion^{to incorporate}

Weird Al

Lets look at the facts here. First please be civil, I never expressed or implied that I am "deciding" what ethnicity someone is or going against the wishes of his father (which seems a weird thing to say since you have presented no source saying what his "will" actually is). In fact when I disagreed with the original removal of Weird Al from the article I answered with a source. You have alleged this source is wrong but haven't given a reason except pointing toward an article which says he is American and the Weird Al website which says he is Yugoslavian. We know that being Yugoslavian doesn't mean you are always Serbian, but that doesn't mean being Yugoslavian means you are never Serbian. We know Yankovic is a Serbian name and, thought this is a weak argument, the editors of Serbs and List of Serbs have listed Weird Al as Serbian. As for Weird Al's website, and I admit this is speculation, there is no evidence about when it was last updated and in fact it could date before the dissolution of Yugoslavia and was written in an effort to make it easier for the average American to understand his ethnicity. As for the article, saying someone has an American ethnicity is deceptive because most Americans have different ethnic heritages, though there are some who claim it such as in the south. A Yugoslavian ethnicity is also deceptive considering the nation once contained several different ethnic groups and the name for the country itself just meant "South Slavia" or "Land of South Slavs."

I'm willing to compromise but the only way I could see it happening is if we get a neutral third party to look into our dispute. Until then I will continue to do research as I hope you will also. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia at Olympics

Please accept my apologies for my changes to the Yugoslavia at the Olympics article. I did not understand the complexity of the situation. For the past couple of days, I've been attempting to reconcile the differences between the All-time Olympic Games medal table article and the individual <country> at the Olympics articles, mostly fixing missing and incomplete Beijing medal counts. Not counting Germany and a slight inconsistency in the Russia vs Russian Empire distinction, the Yugoslavia medal counts were the sole remaining discrepancy, which I was attempting to correct. As I now see, I should have done more research before acting (such as actually reading and following the Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics link at the top of the article).

However, I did locate the Yugoslavia at the 1996 Summer Olympics article (and the 1998 Winter, and 2000 Summer, and 2002 Winter articles) whose "summary" links refer back to the Yugoslavia at Olympics article. Perhaps the links should be updated refer to the Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics article. And as you already noted, the All-time Olympic Games medal table should probably also be updated to show the distinction.

I'd be happy to make some of these changes to improve cross-article consistency – subject to discussion and review of course.

By the way, I did drop a note on the WikiProject Olympics talk page, so I don't think I was totally out of control, just a bit too WP:BOLD. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady windsor

I keep the word "erased", but please you can't erase part of the voice. Also note that their original surname is "DElupis" so, please, stop to erase it. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.81.229.33 (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

help on article macedonism

a bulgarian user implies propaganda into thje article! Korpas (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Bulgarian user implies objective explainatoins and scientific studies. The Macedonists, blind reverts and nonsences. Regards! Jingby (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes.....

I forget to use the "Show preview" button too. - 4.240.165.138 (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Auja

Hi Imbris! Please don't unilaterally change things on Wikipedia without discussing first. I left a comment on the talk page almost a week ago and you haven't replied, so I am left to assume that you do not object to what I said (see also WP:BRD). Unilateral moves without discussion or proper argument may result in a block from editing Wikipedia. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese

Kindly stop introducing false information into the article; refer to the history section. No classical sources mention any Croatian origin; pushing your national bias is not acceptable. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will not accept your current agenda of pushing a national perspective, and attempting to deflect that founded accusation on me. Look below: you have another editor's opinion already. Perhaps consensus can be found on the talk page, but certainly not if you keep reverting edits. I am not introducing unestablished information, you are. A spirit of cooperation is of paramount importance. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so aggressive at the suggestion that working together is the best way forward? Please reconsider this pov pushing agenda of yours, it will do the project no favours. You have removed important, interesting information from the article: it shall be fixed. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, your pro-Eastern pov pushing won't be tolerated. Pax^^ the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Issa' is the name of the dog, not the Roman Governor. The Governor's name was Publius, who is shown by historical record (archeological and documented fact) to have resided and governed the Mediterranean island of Malta. He is also mentioned in that context within the New Testament. I just thought you should be told there was no Governor Issa :) the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quote, from your little encyclical on my talkpage: "Issa -the name of the Roman Governor should not be translated to the modern Maltese language". A few more hours at night school may be in order. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Maltese (dog), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tool2Die4 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second that: you have done this several times now. Stop pushing your nationalistic agenda and kindly stick to the facts. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are unable to hold back from making nationally motivated edits. Very disappointing; I suggest we take this into arbitration, since you seen unable to understand my position and I find yours, quite frankly, to be untenable. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

I've started an AN/I thread here regarding your edit-warring. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Maltese (dog)

Oh, I understand that just fine, saw it already. I just wanted to revert back to the time when both of you didn't exist. Elm-39 - T/C 12:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian American

While "Bosnian and Herzegnovinan American" would be more technically correct than "Bosnian American", the latter is the commonly used term. WP:COMMONNAME PRODUCER ^(TALK) 21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Republika_Srpska#Using_modern_terms_to_describe_the_nations_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina by your logic Bosnian Muslims, Croats, Serbs should be referred to as Bosnian and Herzegovinian Muslims, Croats, Serbs. It's technically more correct, but wiki insists on WP:COMMONNAME. Google brings up 27,100 for Bosnian American while Bosnian and Herzegovnian brings up only 363 PRODUCER ^(TALK) 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?!

I'm not sure which part of 'I'm washing my hands of this' you fail to understand, nor what precisely it is you're jabbering about. I have distanced myself from your work on the project entirely, I suggest you get on with whatever it is you are here to do. Cheers, את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC info

So...you didn't do the user conduct RFC right so I reverted some of the related edits.[1][2]

If you're going to pursue a user conduct RFC against Pietru il-Boqli (talk · contribs), you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct and Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users. I may be willing to certify such an RFC, but only if Pietru il-Boqli is actually still active in the relevant disputes.

If you're just trying to get wider opinions on the content issue, Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles, templates, or categories has the relevant information and doesn't require any certification. — Scientizzle 19:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese

I suggest we call admin/s in again, I'm afraid I really have had enough of you and your attitude. The article does not benefit from constant back-and-forth reverting and pernicious tampering.

I apologise for pointing out your various grammatical/syntactical mistakes, I hope you'll find the means to correct them in your own time. Regarding your presumptions of my ancestry, it's English and Maltese. I think I have a fair idea about yours already. Cheers, 汚い危険きつい (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only return to that article to fix pernicious edits. In the interim (while the article was protected) and since, I have been mostly active on articles dealing with Maltese prehistory. As a matter of fact, I'm not as passionate about the Maltese dog as you are. I'm not sure why you keep saying sources have been removed; they haven't. Are you simply lying, or is there something you see which I don't? I dislike these chats you keep forcing me into Imbris. I have restored the article placement, if you disagree please ask for comment on the talkpage where myself and other editors can dispute your claims. Otherwise, goodbye. 汚い危険きつい (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maltese (dog). 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. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Maltese (dog). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Kevin (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bribery?

Bribery? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you read that?

I am restoring the correct data. Yes, do not move to the 19th century or such misinterpretations, but let's leave it at the 13th or 14th.

Masking? Sorry, that was fixed.

Cheers, --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Tan | 39 05:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you because you made no attempt at resolving the edit war at Maltese Dog - while the page was protected, you did not post to the talk page at all. Directly after the protection expired, you made the same reversion you had been making before. I saw your post at RFPP, and while odd, does not excuse your edit warring. Please stop. Tan | 39 05:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

Most of the discussion at the Talk:Maltese (dog) was my attempts to state reasons, list sources, find compromise and also list other wikipedia's articles which use the exact same Other names pattern as should the article on Maltese Dog. Also I have attempted to discuss the matter on User talk:Tanthalas39#Maltese (dog) while the protection was in place. Pietru was blocked during this time and also blocked was his talk page. I knew that RFPP is the right thing to do but also knew that admins could not see eye to eye with me and not revert to a version before the edit-war. In fact I reverted to Pietru's own edit (before the edit-war). I do not see how this could be misinterpreted as edit-waring because I did talk, I did make my intention clear (reverting to the last version before the edit-war). I made my reasons clear - bringing Pietru to the discussion table. I did not shut down and revert just as it was an ordinary edit. I talked and talked but Pietru "washed his hands of me" and ceased talking; but he did not "wash his hands of the article he is not interested in" and of my edits to the article. Why am I getting blocked? I did nothing wrong but Pietru's sock is doing it just now. Also I would like to mention that Tanthalas39 wants you to look at the my talk page and doesn't mention that Pietru is on wikipedia longer than I, has a few more edits than I but his (Pietru's) talk page is virtualy blank because he deletes his talk page allmost after every new section of that talk page. I mention this because it seems that the Tanthalas39 wants my block to be in force because of my talk page omitting the fact that I have not been blocked previous my incounter with Pietru. -- Imbris (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you say, you "knew that RFPP is the right thing to do". That's where that should have stopped. There is no qualifier for that, and your attempt to provide one for it by using the ever-popular "wrong version" argument is one of the least convincing I've ever read. You also fail to assume good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request reason:

At RFPP I requested protection before the edit-war and fail to see this move as an attempt to protect the right version. Also you have denied my unblock because of what exactly? Reverting to a version before the edit-war started couldn't be seen as wrong doing because I have talked about it at Tan's talk page and at RFPP. I think that another admin should look to see if there is any chance to review my doing about the article. Did I delete something or insert sourced material. Why Daniel Case sees it his way is beyond me but I have assumed good faith even the other editor used provocations, faul language and accusations instead of arguments. I have tryed to RfC but was stopped because apparently Pietru ceased disrupting, but did he stop his trolling. No he did not, he continued. Nevertheless of my current block I will try RfC once more. -- Imbris (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

revert warring is nto allowed even if you have attempted to start discussions. Discussions are to be carried on instead of reverting the article, and merely because you left notifications of your intents on talk pages does not then excuse edit warring at the article. Since I see no indication that you intend to stop the behavior that led to this block, I see no reason as yet to unblock. Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{unblock|I belive that it was not edit-waring, because I have reverted to a position that was before the last edit-war. When I say the last edit-war I mean the last time before Pietru's trolling. I promise that I will not under no circumstances revert the article again. I will seak administrative help in resolving the crisis of demands made by certain admins that I should: withdrew, take a wikibreak, seek dispute resolutions, protect the article at its version before the last edit-war. The only thing I am asking for, is to be unblocked so that I might seek help on the issues. -- Imbris (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per stipulation below.

Request handled by: Tan | 39 19:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Unblock discussion

Would you agree to refrain from editing the article in question and immediately start a detailed RfC if you were unblocked? I will unblock with this stipulation. Tan | 39 19:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I will refrain from editing the article in question and immediately start a detailed RfC. -- Imbris (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that the article would be protected in full, at the version before the edit-war, or at any version you see fit. -- Imbris (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the way it works is this. You need to develop a consensus for one version or another. It's not about recruiting people to support you, exactly, it's about getting uninvolved people to comment and come to some kind of solution. I'm not familiar enough with the guts of the dispute to say, but it's possible that some kind of compromise might be the best solution. But in the end, if a consensus does develop and a single editor disagrees with it, there are policies under which they can be blocked if they won't accept it. The best thing about a firm consensus, though, is that any edit war will quickly become lopsided, with substantially more people on one side than the other, given time for enough people to notice it. This leads to a circumstance where the "griefer" must realize that they either have to break WP:3RR or accept the other version. So, there are ways.. but the way it always has to work is through building a consensus first: otherwise, it's unrealistic to expect admins to be able to choose the right side in a substantive dispute.. admins have extra functions they can use but they don't have elevated authority over article content. Mango juice^talk 21:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I demand you apologise for characterising my edits on the Maltese dog article as 'trolling'. The issues are being dealt with in a suitable fashion at last, as you will remember, I called for admins too. However slander will not be tolerated, especially in light of my approach to your work. 汚い危険きつい (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have every right to describe what I felt like when dealt with you. Please stop communicating with me, as you have requested that I do not contact you any more. I will stand no more your abusive language and talks of your linguistic supremacy. Also your presumptions on my character, nationality and my editing are not welcome. You need to curb your emotions and stop griefing other editors. Feel free to discuss wherever you want but not here. EOD. -- Imbris (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This lack of decency is the true grievance. You have not simply presumed upon but denigrated my character, nationality, edits and identity. This is all. 汚い危険きつい (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have I asked you not to address me any more, your listing of what you have done to me is what is undecent. Nobody touched your character, nationality and identity. Your harsh and abusive language, denialism of sources and nationalistic editing is what scared our contributive relations on this Wikipedia. Please stop vandalising my talk page. -- Imbris (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed history

"Then all of history sections in all of dog breed articles should be renamed Disputed history, except from the part from when standardization started?"

Yes, why not, except that for many breeds, there is an "accepted" version of breed history - it's not "disputed" unless someone starts an argument. Can I try to interpret what you mean by " except from the part from when standardization started"? Do you mean before the breeds had written documentation and record keeping of their ancestry? A breed is defined by its ancestry. Dogs in ancient times in various places may have had a similar appearance, but that does not prove they were related; only knowing their ancestry proves a relationship. Today we can find some of that information about dogs with DNA testing, but formerly the only way was through written or oral records of breeding and ancestry. Before record keeping, all we have are listings of dog types that looked similar or the same but may or may not have bred true, or even been related in any way. Those types were throughout history sometimes documented -- as with the oral records of the Bedouin about their sighthounds' ancestry or records of Pekinese breeding in Imperial China. Many ancient records like that are lost through time. Unless there is proof, through DNA tests or written records, that specific old types of dogs are related to a specific modern breed, all the ancient history before record keeping is guesswork. --Hafwyn (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Stjepan Vukčić Kosača a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

personal attacks

Please refrain from comments like this in which you call an editor a "known pranskter" who "makes fun of Wikipedia." That's a personal attack and behavior like that can get you blocked. Comments like that are going to make the discussion degenerate into a war; they have already led to the article being protected. Mango juice^talk 15:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]