User talk:Koakhtzvigad

Welcome!

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page

Help:Wiki_markup#Format

User Koakhtzvigad:Useful templates

• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Arnhem

Thanks Koakhtzvigad, you are of course quite correct. I had a feeling when I reworked the sentence that there was more to it than that, and Ryan details the incident you mention a lot more. Do you have a full ref (title, authors year etc...) for the document you mention? I might be able to use it as well. Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember what Ryan says in his book, but I think its unlikely since it seems to me Ultra was still a secret in 1974 when he wrote his book. Maybe he cites it under some other excuse.

pdf link [1]--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Re; Archers' Hall

I'm not sure the hall really counts as a visitor attraction in the same way as, say, Edinburgh Zoo or Dynamic Earth, though you may be right here. It is worth mentioning that tours are available, yes - I assumed it was not open to the public and so would not count as an attraction. The other category I removed was Category:Historic Scotland properties, which is intended for buildings which are in the ownership or care of Historic Scotland, not historic buildings in general. The listed building categories fill this role. I trust this makes sense. By the way, do you have a translation of the latin lines, or know the author or title of the work they are taken from? Then the big ugly translate tag can be removed! Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've also made some changes to List of winners of the Edinburgh Arrow - I hope you dont think I'm stalking you! But you need to add a reference for the list of names, and it also needs a copyedit - it looks like an OCR scan? I changed "Cockbum" to "Cockburn" but there are others, and probably several names can be linked too. Thanks for adding the page though. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, yes putting in times and contacts would be advertising. But you can say, for instance: "Public access to the Archers' Hall is available by appointment". Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Royal Company of Archers Peer Review

Hi, I noticed you started a Peer review for the Royal Company of Archers article. You actually missed the final step which creates the peer review subpage. I've done this now, so your request for peer review should show up at Wikipedia:Peer review, or you can see the subpage directly at Wikipedia:Peer review/Royal Company of Archers/archive1. Dr pda (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-tank warfare, sources

Hi, I see you are adding material to Anti-tank warfare, which is great! However, could you provide some reliable sources for your additions please? (Hohum ^@) 02:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Your page

You created the page in article space, not sandbox space. If you want it to be treated as a sandbox page, then create it as one next time — because if it's in article space, then it's subject to article space rules. And I am an administrator, by the way, so you'd be well advised to watch your tone of voice if you don't want to get your edit privileges suspended. Bearcat (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody on here is obliged to assume anything — and the page was not in your "personal" space. You know, I'd be quite happy to restore the page to your user space for you, if you're prepared to drop the belligerent attitude and ask in a respectful and polite manner. But I'm not obliged to do so if you keep talking to me in the arrogant tone you've been using so far. Bearcat (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Listen...I am not going to be intimidated by you while you refuse to believe you did something wrong.

What do you think this Koakhtzvigad/FIELD ENGINEERING looks like, a new article stub? I made a mistake, and you diligently eliminated my sandbox NO QUESTIONS ASKED. So who is a belligerent? Wouldn't be someone who shoots first and asks questions later, would it?

How about this. You put it back, and you won't look silly when I ask another administrator with better people skills to do it?

May I also remind you at this time that your administrative privileges were given to help editors, and not hinder them. Or maybe its been so long since 2003 that you forgot? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to clarify this one more time for the record: you created a page with virtually no content in article space. I deleted it; you'll find that almost any administrator on this site would have done the same, and almost nobody would have assumed that they needed to act otherwise. Nobody on here owes you the benefit of the doubt; people create weird and unsalvageable "articles" on here all the time, and deleting such flotsam is part of an administrator's job.

But instead of politely asking me to restore the page to your userspace for you, which I would have done quite happily, your very first post to me on the matter was a belligerent "how dare you delete my outstanding work" attack, complete with a threat to take it straight to arbitration even though you hadn't even attempted any of the standard first steps that even the arbitration committee would have told you to take before they would step in. Do you really think that any reasonable person, confronted with the tone of your original post, would have responded any differently than I did? If you think I'm trying to be "intimidating" or "unaccountable" or "hindering", then I've got news for you: I've done nothing of the sort.

You'll kindly note that the page has already been restored to your actual user space, so there's no point in continuing to accuse me of being difficult. You started this discussion already displaying the approximate people skills of an orc with a migraine, before I'd even had the opportunity to say a single word — so if you really think that you were some sort of paragon of patience and maturity in this discussion and I was being a selfish idiot, then you really need to take a good long look at your own communication style before you point any more fingers at other people. End of discussion. Bearcat (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If you wanted to end a discussion (and I said - no need to reply), you would not have asked a question (which needs a reply) - Do you really think that any reasonable person, confronted with the tone of your original post, would have responded any differently than I did?

This assumes that I conform to you definition of reasonable. As it turns out, I have a definition of my own - Good Faith Collaboration.

So my question is - do you think any reasonable person, confronted with something irregular, deletes it before looking?

I never claimed it was "my outstanding work", nor was it a "weird and unsalvageable "article".

The rule in the real world is, you mess up, you clean up. Unfortunately, you as an administrator denied me this opportunity, and made my mistake, your own.

I shouldn't have to say please. If its true that administrators do not give anyone benefit of the doubt (A favorable judgement given in the absence of full evidence), or actually looks at what they are doing, but just clicks their mouse button, then I suppose thats a Wikipedian culture issue. But, this [2] is not news :)Koakhtzvigad (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I think the issue is far simpler than that; we're just looking at the page from different perspectives. As the editor who created it, you're seeing it through the lens of how you planned to develop it into a full article — but as an administrator who spends at least two hours of every day sorting through new articles, and dealing on a daily basis with the endless parade of ways in which people can intentionally or unintentionally create things that don't actually resemble real articles, from my perspective the page as it stood didn't actually look like anything other than a regular, run of the mill speedy deletion candidate.

You think your page looked "irregular" enough to warrant some kind of special attention above and beyond the standard process, because you're seeing what you intend the finished product to be — whereas I see anywhere between 50 and 100 pages a day which look very much like yours did, and which usually don't deserve any special handling apart from the delete button. I think you may not fully realize how much junk the administrators on here end up dealing with each day — I suppose your page might have looked odd enough to warrant some sort of special attention if such non-articles were rare enough to raise an eyebrow, but unfortunately these days it's the quality contributions that are rare and unusual, not the "er, what the heck is this?" pages. Bearcat (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I would suggest that you start looking at the speedy delete candidates more carefully. Given the number of people that edit Wikipedia, it is quite reasonable to assume that sometimes users will make same common mistakes, such as forgetting to add User: before their sandbox name. So, if you see what looks like a user name with a \, assume its that, since this qualifies for an intended use of correct syntax. From the 1037+ articles created daily, the 100 slated for speedy deletion represent less than 10%, so not bad considering some people have a problem ordering at McDonald's. Try and see if any are just honest mistakes than willful mischievousness. In any case, your two hours will get substantially shorter soon Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Question

I just went here[3] and looked through all the links.... Seems weird to me - hope someone has an answer. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Systematic process

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Systematic process, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://cmapskm.ihmc.us/rid=1052458945600_298605774_8263/Systematic%20process.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Israel and the apartheid analogy

Hello. This article, like all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, is subject to a one-revert rule. That means an editor may only make one revert in any 24-hour period. You have made two reverts today.

I recommend that you undo your last revert in order to avoid violating the one-revert rule. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)