User talk:Turqoise127/Archive 2 - 2010

Happy New Year!

...and if you ever doubted that the world loved you, as it loves everyone, here's some proof. All the best, Drmies (talk) 08:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than one can apply

I couldn't tell if your sarcasm here [1] was because you were just being sarcastic or if you don't get the concept that more than one set of criteria can apply. This is especially true when I mentioned recentism. That's simply a guideline to put things like NOTNEWS into perspective. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jelena Dorotke

Hey Turqoise127, any chance you can hunt for some more references regarding this person? Its a new article created today that was already put under the speedy deletion hammer, see [2]. Cheers--Milowent (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I determined correct spelling is Jelena Dorotka.--Milowent (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Milowent. I am more than willing to help, even though my last request for assistance from you remained forever unanswered on your talk page. The problem with this subject of Jelena Dorotka is that recently the TV show on her life aired, and all my sources show pages upon pages of TV listings (similar to tv-guide) of the time when it is on. It would take me longer than the AfD to find verif rs. I will state my opinion on the AfD though.Turqoise127 (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Thanks. Re the other issue, I did chime in here[3], but I realize now you probably didn't see it.--Milowent (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis

Congrats to Marin Čilić. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, it was a good run anyway. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

::= PLEASE MOVE ON =

Hi Drmies, regarding the article [4] that you keep WP:HOUNDing,

I found a source for his work at state office of education here [[5]]. Now, that shows us your inability and un-willingness to find sources. Also, the utahsright.com website gets updated all the time, back when we had the first AfD it showed his info employed at office of education. I have changed the section to read only the one sentence now, I hope you are happy? Now, per WP:HORSE, please move on and go supervise some other article, maybe oliebol or something. Thanks.Turqoise127 (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So--you can't answer how you found this source? And how did you know he applied for a job at the CIA and was vetted? How did you know he was "offered the position in form of a conditional offer for employment letter"--did you read his mail? Just flogging a dead horse, I know, but I'm curious nonetheless: many Wikipedia editors have this curiosity, it comes with the territory. Pozdravi, Drmies (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the source by google search subject's name in quotes. It appears on page 2 of results. It is an elementary search that all who AGF do before hounding. I know about his cia experience because he told me, his was my first article and I did not know policies then (unverifiable). Like I say in the article talk pages, I know the kid, that is no coi. Thanks. Turqoise127 (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi, congrats on keep, but i wouldn't waste time talking to the trolls. Pohick2 (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boba Phat at AFD again

An AFD you participated in 6 months ago, is being done again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boba_Phat_(2nd_nomination) Dream Focus 08:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:University of Tubingen Seminar.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:University of Tubingen Seminar.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Smartse (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my talk page. Smartse (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

DGG gave you sound advice regarding this previously, yet in the last day you have called me wicked and a coward, after I reminded you on a talk page of WP:NPA. SmartSE (talk) 08:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

notifying on afds

When you notify people who have participated in an earlier AfD, you need to notify those who had substantial participation regardless of what view they expressed, not just the ones on your side-- unless, of course, they already have seen it and commented there. Otherwise, it can be considered canvassing. DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are so funny!

You wrote "Please do not WP:bludgeon all participants". You have made 22 edits to the AfD discussion—more than 21% of the total number of edits, and more than 50% more edits to the page than the second-most-participating editor (the nominator). Who's doing the bludgeoning? I see you are not a subscriber to the philosophy that "less is more", and that a single, lucid articulation of a proposition is better than a death of a thousand (well, 22) cuts. But your behavior does make an amusing spectator activity. ^Bongo_matic 02:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad I can amuse you. Perhaps your time would be better spent at another activity, I feel it was some of your best work here [[6]]Turqoise127 01:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree with the edit I made to that page, you could nominate it for deletion. ^Bongo_matic 02:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T. deserves credit for zealous advocacy. Please create others on other Croatian subjects, I have enjoyed getting to know a little about Croatia recently but would like to go beyond beauty queens and Farma.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, don't do it

My vague recollection is that you tried a similar stunt when it got deleted the first time. This isn't going to go well. Accept my objective opinion that your pet subject fell beneath a bar. Perhaps you can find other articles below that bar as well if you spent lots of time on it, but life is too short, and your two targets so far didn't hit the mark. There really are so many articles yet to be written that would not be subject to deletion for lack of coverage.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
like Pero Čingrija.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Milo. Did you know I kind of like this band [7]? It's ok. Anyhow, I am grateful for all your help and support, you are a good guy. Respect.

You probably do not want to associate with me (just look at my talk page) at this moment. Especially not smart would be to state "you are in my cabal". I am my own idiot, an island. I do not yet know what I will do, the band name above really boils my blood, but I will probably get bored and move on. We'll just have to see....Turqoise 127

Personal attack warning

Just for the record, it's good I didn't catch this when it was around: [8], or I'd have blocked you for 48 hours. Please edit civilly, it's really not that hard. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

uuuuuu, it's good I didn't catch this, me, the sheriff who patrols others' talk pages... uuuuu it would have been "Pow!! right in the kisser" had I caught this you naughty turqoise...

If you do not like what is on my personal talk page... don't come by.Turqoise 127 00:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, comments anywhere—even on your own talk page—are subject to the policies here. Your comment clearly violated them and I didn't report it because I don't think that such report typically accomplish anything positive. While it's true that your recent editing has been highly tendentious, disruptive, and (generally wrongly) accusatory, I'm not inclined to play the Wikikindergarten game frequently. ^Bongo_matic 01:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, why did you name yourself after a marijuana smoking device[9] ? Turqoise127 01:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a bongo a type of drum?! SmartSE (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for making ad hominems on another editor [10] after warnings. While this edit was no worse than most of your others, it is nevertheless unacceptable. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2010 (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).

Turqoise127 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In my statement that Magog the Ogre quotes as being the reason fot the block there are no ad hominems. There are no personal attacks either, I simply offer my opinion of the AfD and of another editor's comments. The editor in question, Agricola44, engaged in a very long argument with another editor during this same AfD, and having experienced that type of agression disguised as wisdom before from Agricola44 forcing their own POV, I stated what I did. I live in a free country, Magog, I do not know where you live; and my statements would not be punishable or uncivil or considered a personal attack if said in the street. Your reasoning about "my other infractions" is invalid, because by that rationale, antyone anytime can be blocked if an admin percieves something they said was "not acceptable". You, on the other hand, leave threats on my talk page completely unprovoked. I have not had any interaction with you before ever. That borders on WP:HARASS.You are simply defending someone you feel I offended and flexing your admin powers; abusing them I should say. Thus, unblock me immediately, and know that your action here is not one becoming a Wikipedia administrator - to say the least.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Your comment was a basic casting of aspersions, tantamount to a direct personal attack. I'm sure you or I can get away with attacking others IRL, but not here. –MuZemike 02:18, 14 November 2010 (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.

Perhaps I phrased this wrong. The problem was a lack of civility, which is one of Wikipedia's core pillars. It's closely related to a personal attack, but not necessarily the same thing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in your unblock request, you again cast an ad hominem, this time at me (it is completely unfounded). I recommend reading WP:GAB before placing any further requests or they will almost certainly be denied. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2010 (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).

Turqoise127 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In looking over WP:BLOCK, the only section that seems to apply here is "Disruption". Within this section, the only line that is relevant is "persistent gross incivility". Now, I do not believe Magog has shown evidence of persistent incivility, much less could what I said in the AfD ("pretentiousness, forcefullness and over-the-top deletionism tactics") be interpreted as gross incivility. Let us not play games with semantics and equate my comments with personal attacks. I never used profanity or hate speech, I was never sexist or racist. If this block is allowed, it is simply censorship and abuse of admin rights. Please, if another admin decides to deny this request, do please direct me to how I can proceduraly make myself heard on this issue after the block has expired and have the admin actions of editor Magog be reviewed. RespectfullyTurqoise 127 10:02 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Racism, sexism, profanity or hate speech are not the only types of personal attacks or gross incivility that exist. Edits like this, as well as the one for which you were blocked, fall under the same category. Furthermore, this block isn't censorship of anything. It's simply notice that your behavior will not be allowed. Continuing to act in this fashion will lead to increasingly lengthy blocks. TNXMan 04:49, 14 November 2010 (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.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z8

Anushka Wirasinha

You may remember this article which was deleted at AfD in June. A new, fuller version has been prepared and, being asked for advice, I have decided that the best thing to do is to post it and relist at AfD for the community's opinion. I am notifying everyone who was involved before: your views are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushka Wirasinha (2nd nomination). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I just created Maatstaf; I thought I'd leave you a note saying so. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct

Hi Turqoise127

What is the purpose of making a statement like "I simply felt that you ought to know that maybe there are those who do not respect you or your opinions much within the project"? To me (I don't know how other editors might perceive it), this seems disruptive, not assuming good faith, and likely to reduce, rather than increase, the overall level of civility and collegiality here. There's no reason to conclude that an experienced administrator such as Atama would be unable to come to informed decisions of the follow-up to discussions in which he had previously participated.

While reviewing the contributions of editors with a documented history of editing problems (such as creation of articles on non-notable topics, or retributive or POINTy notability tagging / deletion nominations) may be warranted (I certainly review your contributions, as I would imagine do several other editors), I think the community would frown on the manner in which you are following around certain editors. Please review WP:HOUND for the relevant policy, which clearly distinguishes between the two types of behavior.

You are, of course, free to—and going to, to the extent doing so doesn't result in blocks—edit as you see fit. However, I would recommend that you figure out a way to edit so that any editor who reviews the totality of your contributions (to article space and elsewhere) would consider your contribution to the project be net positive.

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 05:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, my comment to Atama that you mention is -I feel- spot on. They should know that someone stomped all over their mediation attempt. What SmartSE did on that occasion, Bongomatic, was simply very wrong. You were persistently against that article too, but you never did something like that, did you?

You and Drmies discussed my referring you to that one page when I got blocked for it, didn’t you?

It is very convenient how you justify yourself following my every move, but honestly I am ok with it. It’s kind of cute and fun to have an audience, so stalk away.

Regarding my following certain editors, you are plain wrong. It has been well established that I am allowed to look through contributions of editors who are known to me. If I see subject matter I feel is not inclusion worthy, I am allowed to act.

I have been doing this in a civil manner after my block; commenting on talk pages and asking opinion; if I tag or nominate for afd it will only be after big time due process.

Bongomatic, I know you do not like me, and that’s ok. But look, I have been blocked, my talk page is full of warnings, I have been shamed. Can you please stop accusing me of misconduct? You voted for me to be banned from the community, will you not stop until you achieve that? That’s too bad.Turqoise 127 20:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A look at your recent edits (especially this and this makes it abundantly clear that you are indeed following editors around who have disagreed with you, and that you are trying to either tag or delete their articles. I don't know if you have been 'shamed,' but you certainly have not been changed into an editor on whose good faith I can rely. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I do not understand. I felt my inquiries that you list have all been extremely civil and not at all agressive. Am I to understand that I am not to touch, comment on or inquire on ANY contribution by any editor that disagreed with me? That seems unfair. That would mean all editors I disagree with have immunity. I would like to be educated on this if I am again doing things that will get me blocked. Where do I ask such questions?Turqoise127 23:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. If you desire to improve the project and be in good standing, stay away from editors you have been in conflict with. I wasn't looking for you, you came to me with some rather weak comments about an article I wrote, claiming "civility." If you want articles to work on, click on "Random Article", or have a look at Category:Unreferenced BLPs. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Curzon-Price

Dear User:Turqoise127, I notice that you want to delete the little article on Victoria Curzon-Price per nom and failing relevant notability guidelines. I think I have impoved the evidence of notability in via highlighting her WP:prfo qualifications via "her academic work", her "Professorship at Geneva" her being "president of Mont Pelerin Society" and WP:POLITICIAN via elected position. Would you have any advice as to which bits you are worried about and if, or how, the article might be improved rather than deleted? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Sure. I should disclose I am being accused of only voting here because another editor did, but that is not the case. My concern is as follows; her academic posts were all professorships, not heads of university, thus failing WP:PROF on that point. The Mont Pelerin Society seems notable, but is her presidency of it notable? What policy would indicate so? Finally, I am not familiar enough with the government elections and the post she was elected to. It could be notable, but it might also be something like a local council meeting (ecscuse my ignorance if this is way off). If you would be kind enough to comment on these points, I may be persuaded to change my vote. Thanks.Turqoise 127 00:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - no worries if you are busy with things.

I think her notability is established by her publications (their quantity and quality alone might no be judged sufficient) but these in part got her the post as a full professor at Genevre. Being president of Mont Pelerin Society would also seem to me further indication of her meeting WP:Prof #6 "the person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a ... major academic society. She also seems to meet, via her elected position to Grand Conseil Etat de Genève, WP:politician. Politicians ... members and former members of a .. state or provincial legislature. . Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Many thanks and best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Also . . .

. . . you may have some perspective on this, this, and this. ^Bongo_matic 03:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]