User talk:Abyssinia H

This is Abyssinia H's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 16 days

Note: If you leave a message here, I will most likely respond here. I may leave a talkback message on your talkpage if I believe it would be helpful. I will most likely do so if you are a new or anonymous editor or you request it on your own talk page.

R' Avraham Duber Kahana Shapiro

Please take a look at the discussion by him. Thank you

Hola

Las gracias mucho, gay, acabo de conseguir un nuevo nombre del usuario, y ahora, me bloquean para la vida.

Seinfeld

Yes, good call on Seinfeld, I should of thought of that. While I'm here, I see you haven't even had your welcome template yet! Everyone sould have one, here you go:

Welcome!

Hello, Abyssinia H, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Kidding aside, good to have you aboard. I'm still a bit of a newbie myself, but if you need any help feel free to ask on my talk page and I'll do my utmost to help. --fvw * 21:14, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

TUSC token 9fc966a1f492b64705fdf77a13aba8c9

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Deleted Basketball Club

Hi I don't understand why this article should be deleted. The club is already noted on the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs_in_Sweden . This is the biggest Serbian basketball club (outside Serbia). I used to be a player in the club and I'm still a active member so I should know a lot about the club. All this facts are correct and can me checked up.

Tree Shaping

Hi, your right of course. I apologizes. The talk archives are quite long so I understand no one wants to read through them, but if anyone did then they would understand my position. Basically Blackash has burnt out some 3 prolific wiki editors and one mediator. I'm just the last one standing to try attempt to protect my own name from a professional rival. Yea it was getting pissy, sorry I'll go back to my day job now. Good luck, hope you will stay around and get yourself up to speed on the talk archives.Slowart (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Real world clue http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw#hl=en&sugexp=elsfph&xhr=t&q=Hi+this+is+Becky+arborsculpture&cp=31&pf=p&sclient=psy&site=webhp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Hi+this+is+Becky+arborsculpture&pbx=1&bav=on.1,or.&fp=cd4aedb2d07b3b5f Slowart (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand and thank you for your openness about this. It's easy to get burnt out in these kinds of debates, especially when you consider that we're all here "for fun." I guess my question at this point is what your intentions are now regarding this issue. Certainly it's perfectly fine to disengage and leave the issue alone, though I very much don't want you to get the idea that any of us are trying to force you out of Wikipedia over this. On the other hand, I'm don't really see it being feasible for you to continue to edit articles in this topic if you are unwilling to give mediation a good faith try here (assuming Blackash and any others are also willing to do so), as the editing process inherently requires discussion and collaboration. So I don't want to see you go (nor I think "argument by exhaustion" is a good dispute resolution strategy here), but I also don't want to see this continue without all parties attempting to resolve the situation. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This arguement between Blackash and Slowart started when Richard Reams(Slowart) tried to group other artists under Arborsculpture which is his marketing label.If you read the archives at any point this should be made clear.

Blackash has been continually attacked - see Grisium's talk page. There is proof that Richard Reams is Grisium - see my talk page.There are links to this.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point.Slowart (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it were only "argument by exhaustion" that would be one thing, but as you can see, it's well beyond that. So my best bet here is to simply disengage, if others are willing to step in and save the article and related articles from being degraded.Slowart (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation by Sydney Bluegum a single purpose account, was investigated and rejected. Repeated sock puppet accusation on my real world name, are simply bad form and one more good reason to quit.Slowart (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle de Borchgrave

Hi Zach,

I wonder if you can help me with dealing with an "Orphan" heading that someone placed on my article on Isabelle de Borchgrave. I am not sure what this means and if I should simply remove it or do something to the article. I would greatly appreciate your participation, if you have time. Thanks.--Patriciathornton (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Patriciathornton[reply]

No worries. --Patriciathornton (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Patricaithornton[reply]

Hi

Could you review in my editor review? Thanks. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 08:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Isabelle de Borchgrave

On 1 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Isabelle de Borchgrave, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Belgian artist Isabelle de Borchgrave creates life-size, painted paper sculptures of wedding gowns, shoes, needlework lace, and strings of pearls? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This is really great news. Thanks for nominating this article.--Patriciathornton (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polygenism

There is a problem on the polygenism page a user called 2over0 is deleting information on purpose over and over he is deleting a section about Akhil Bakshi a scientist who claims races evolved on different continents becuase he has a personal bias against this information. He has spent the last 6 days deleting the sectione everyday (when 4 other users myself included) keep putting it back up. First he claimed the source was fine but too long, then he says the source is unreliable, then he says it is too long for wikipedia now he claims it is copyright... what will he claim next? he can not make his mind up, he will do anything to try and get the information censored becuase he doesm't like it, not an honest user he seems to spend his time deleting anything which goes against the out of africa theory. This guy needs a warning. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded over at Talk:Polygenism. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to look into this; your comments at the talkpage and FTN are thoughtful and well-considered.

Thank you also for respecting my preference to waive the advice at WP:DTTR. If I may quibble with your approach, however, it is generally considered that if one party notifies another that they are edit warring, they are themselves aware of the provisions. More importantly, please be aware that removal of copyright violations is one of the rare explicit exceptions to WP:3RR. I would also like to inquire where you feel I have been uncivil (per your comments at FTN). This is an honest question, as I care about the continuing decline in editorship, and consider that the rising culture of combative editing contributes directly. Feel free to be as general or as explicit as you like, and my email is open if you would prefer to make your points there. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm glad you took it the right way, as my intent was to try to move toward some kind of dialog instead of seeing editors revert each other and not to waive policy and warnings around. I was also trying to avoid directly taking sides and 3rr warnings tend to come in pairs. If the same situation came up again, I'd probably do a personal note instead, as I forgot just how strongly written the uw-3rr template is and this is a case where I certainly wasn't intending to allege bad faith. As far as the copyright violation exception, I'm aware of that and I understand where you're coming from, but since the reversions were happening over the course of a week and the amount of copied content was quite small, I wonder if you could have continued to revert to this partial revert, which I think was a nice compromise pending further discussion, or converted the copied portion to a quotation if possible? The real issue here is/was a content dispute, and I think it makes more sense to handle it that way.

As far as incivility, my intent wasn't to state that you were uncivil; 86.10.119.131 was the one calling you a troll and "not an honest user." As far as I know, you were civil, and to the extent my FT/N comment gave the impression that I thought otherwise, I apologize. I revised my comment slightly to clarify this. While you were certainly civil, I wonder whether some of the acrimony could have been averted with more explicit and verbose efforts to better communicate the issues with him/her up front. Quite possibly not, but worth a shot. He seems to have gotten the impression that he would be banned if he continued to discuss the issue. I'm not sure where this came from exactly, but it might have been aided with more explanation from you as to what's not ok (copyvio, edit warring, incivility) and what is (good faith discussion and citing WP:RS).

In any case, I appreciate your frankness and desire to reduce combative editing. Cheers, Zachlipton (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point on the value of in-depth discussion; my preferred mode of communication is to focus very narrowly at article talkpages on concrete discussions of improvements, but this could very well have been a situation where I might have tried a little harder. I admit that the accusations sapped my desire to invest the effort. I decided to do a clean revert of the copied material instead of reverting to my compromise proposal precisely because that would be edit warring to my preferred version, which would not have been clearly eligible for the narrow interpretation of the exception to 3RR. I am also unsure where the references to banning came from, though FTN has apparently seen someone from this range before. With the additional eyes I expect this should be resolved. And thank you for your other comments :).

Have you ever considered volunteering at Wikipedia:Third opinion? I used to be involved a fair bit there, and you seem to have a good approach to it. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Akhil Bakshi's scientific paper:

"CONTINENTAL DRIFT AND CONCURRENT EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SPECIES" A critique of the African-origin theory by Akhil Bakshi

Link

86.10.119.131 (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

request for removing speedy deletion

iam writing this new article ; i understand that I should create contents to the page ; and i have added the contents also if anything i have to correct pl inform me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm nmc (talk • contribs) 08:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The page had no content for some time, so it was tagged for deletion. I see it has some content now, so I removed the tags. In the future, I recommend making a userspace draft, which will give you a place to take your time writing and to only move your article into place when you're ready. Let me know if I can help with anything and again, welcome to Wikipedia. Zachlipton (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76 Strat 09:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for the DYK nom, I really appreciate it! :) Agreatnotion (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for California Shine the Light law

On 5 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article California Shine the Light law, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that California's Shine the Light Law requires companies either to provide an opt-out from personal information sharing or to disclose the data that they share? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV on California Fire Safe Council article

You added an NPOV to the California Fire Safe Council article, which refers to a discussion on the Talk page which must be resolved before the NPOV is removed. However, the Talk page has no discussion, just a reference to WikiProject California. I am the primary author of the California Fire Safe Council article and want to know what I need to change so that the NPOV can be removed.

Thank you. Oneroomschool (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Porchcrop

I guess I did get a little angry, but I'm getting on with life. Thanks.--Grahame (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tree shaping

There is a proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents As you have had some involvement with these editors in question, you may wish to comment. Blackash have a chat 00:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i have read the last few edits of this page and this one seems more accurate then the one you replaced it with. not sure why you would revert to a less accurate edit?