You are suggesting that any mention of this entity is promotional. I disagree, that's nonsense. You seem to have a dislike of the organisation, or Nitschke. I suggest you take this to ANI perhaps, because it looks like we are going to clash big time over this. [[User:Jabbsworth|Jabbsworth]] ([[User talk:Jabbsworth|talk]]) 18:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
You are suggesting that any mention of this entity is promotional. I disagree, that's nonsense. You seem to have a dislike of the organisation, or Nitschke. I suggest you take this to ANI perhaps, because it looks like we are going to clash big time over this. [[User:Jabbsworth|Jabbsworth]] ([[User talk:Jabbsworth|talk]]) 18:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
:Then fight it out with Claudio. In fact, you are as much POV-pushing as he his doing. Be aware of the possible consequences. You don't have exactly a clean sheet. [[User:Night of the Big Wind|<font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="green">Night of the Big Wind</font></font>]] [[User talk:Night of the Big Wind|<font color="maroon"><sub><i>talk</i></sub></font>]] 18:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Revision as of 18:19, 23 July 2011
Ik probeer naar beste eer en geweten bij te dragen aan het kleine rode blokje van de afbeelding
No problem, obviously your call. Sorry if this is the wrong way of getting back to you. I was merely looking to find the county town of Clare and was a little surprised when it was far from obvious.
1. 'County seat'. I now realise Ennis appears in the left-hand summary box, but I could not originally recognise it there, because of unfamiliarity. While I note the expression 'County seat' appears elsewhere, I suggest in this entry it is importing an anachronistic and so unhelpful term. As the respective Wikipedia entries confirm, 'County seat' appears a specifically North American term, while 'County town' is correct for Ireland. County town should therefore surely take precedence, perhaps along with either "or seat", "/seat" or "(seat)" to assist US users? While I accept neither term is completely opaque to people not familar with them, 'town' seems the more obcvious description of Ennis?
2. I was therefore surprised to see no other reference to the county town, as I would intuitively expect to see the administrative centre normally feature the odd time in an entry for any geographical/political unit. For example, entries for both neighbouring Galway and Kerry each refer to their county town a handful of times, whilst Dublin makes over a dozen appearances in the Ireland entry.
3. 'Local Government and Dail Eireann Representation'. The next thing I did was look in this sectin. If you do feel it right to exclude any reference to local government across the county - being based in, and run from out of, Ennis - then surely this title should be revised to remove "Local Government and" to avoid confusion.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The House (restaurant) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Oonissie (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.
~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 20:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)[reply]
What vandalism is
I don't know what you think you're doing at Talk:Jack_Kevorkian but you need to take a second and review WP:VAND to learn what vandalism is. More specifically, calling an edit "vandalism" when it is not (repeatedly) can be considered a personal attack, and your actions in general today seem to be borderline hounding. Take a step back and remember that you are supposed to be contributing to an encyclopedia, not finding places to pick fights. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, take a moment to relax. If Shirik is in the mood for giving advice s/he might want to have a talk with User:ClaudioSantos also. Xanthoxyl< 20:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you make a chat to Claudio too. Unfortunately, I consider editing in someone elses contributions one of the most sneaky and treacherous forms of vandalisme... Night of the Big Wind (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what you think of it, at least here, it is not vandalism by Wikipedia's definition of the word. So you should stop reverting it, calling it such. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will call it in future: Agressive disrupting POV-editNight of the Big Wind (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with NotBW. One does not edit in messages that are not written by yourself.
If you would do that in mine, I would report you as well. No one appreciates that, it irritates people, and above all, it is a lack of respect. So my advise is, that when someone reverts your edit, then show respect, but better still, stop editing other peoples messages.--Kind regards, Ro de Jong(Talk to me!) 08:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments. However, it is acceptable to blank comments constituting vandalism, internal spam, or harassment or a personal attack. It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment. Users are also permitted to remove comments from their own user talk pages. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve.
”
I will place this on your talk page as well Shirik. --Kind regards, Ro de Jong(Talk to me!) 08:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an explicit difference between blanking someone else's comments and removing content from a banned user. Sockpuppetry is unacceptable and cleaning up after those that abuse multiple accounts is appropriate. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Zojuist heb ik me aangemeld. Omdat ik niet op mezelf ga stemmen wil ik graag mijn stem aan jou geven. Je kunt tegen-, neutraal of voorstemmen, inclusief een toelichting. Ik zal jouw tekst en stem een van de komende dagen naar de aanmeldpagina kopieren.
Met vriendelijke groet,
nl:user:Blueknight 20:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Wat je ook stemt, ik zal er geen enkele consequentie eraan verbinden.
Aha, het kostte wat zoeken maar je hebt je dus aangemeld als moderator. Helaas, ik kan niets voor jou betekenen. Ten eerste ben ik geblokkeerd, ten tweede heb ik daarop nl-wp verlaten. Als een arbitragecommissie zich gaat gedragen als een rechtbank en besluit over zaken zonder te vertellen welk bewijsmateriaal er in gebracht heeft, hoeft het van mij niet meer. Dat heeft niets met jouw lidmaatschap te maken, maar wel met de totaal verkeerde rol die de AC zich heeft aangemeten. En al er dan ook nog dubbele standaarden worden gehanteerd door moderatoren en AC, bedank ik voor de eer. Ik wil verder niets meer met nl-wp te maken hebben. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beste The Banner,
Wat betreft jouw blokkade heb je gelijk, een geblokkeerde gebruiker kan niet stemmen. De discussie met Marrakech op de aanmeldpagina heeft me doen inzien dat het doneren van mijn stem aan jou als een vorm van blokontduiking gezien kan worden. Ik trek daarom mijn aanbod in.
Met vriendelijke groet, Hxq (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
De discussie op de aanmeldpagina maakt alleen duidelijk dat er een hoop verzuurde mensen op nl-wp zitten. Mensen die blijkbaar ook deze pagina volgen omdat ik tot hun vijanden behoor. Het is doodjammer dat zij wel kijken naar het aanbod, maar niet naar mijn reactie erop. Maar goed, als er iemand zwart gemaakt moet worden, ga je niet naar woord en tegenwoord luisteren.
Ongelukkigerwijs heeft het feit wat wij ondanks alle meningsverschillen toch "on speaking terms" zijn gebleven, nu een negatieve impact op jouw kandidatuur. Gelukkig lijkt het geen al te zware effecten te hebben. Night of the Big Windtalk 22:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voor alle simpele zielen die uit zijn op persoonlijke wraak, liever dan een encyclopedie op te bouwen: ik ben weg en blijf weg. Night of the Big Windtalk 23:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Do you have any idea why this edit with Wikipedia Cleaner version 1.09 broke a link? (The software removed a bracket at the end of the link.) HeyMid (contribs) 07:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was not the software that broke the link. After fixing the link to a disambiguation-page, I had a tekst [[Gislaved, Sweden|Gislaved, Sweden]] I removed a bracket too much by fixing this. As you can see I did that more (Maribor and the second time Gislaved). WikiCleaner signals the problem, but does not fix it! Night of the Big Windtalk 11:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
J
I know you're currently working on reverting that one IP's edits on the J article, but I would argue that this edit is not actually vandalism, even though you marked it as so. The point of that part of the article is to discuss the letter in different languages, it appears as though he is adding information on the letter in Korean. --Fbifriday (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain how that edit (^) is vandalism? I'm not really seeing it. —GFOLEYFOUR!— 15:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a) the context of the series edits of Mr. Anonymous. b) the lack of an interwiki with those symbols. Night of the Big Windtalk 15:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I see that you tagged three redirects for speedy deletion under G8. G8 is usually used to request deletion of redirects to pages that have been, or are going to be, deleted. That doesn't appear to be the case here.
Could you explain, either here or on my Talk page, why you want these redirects deleted? Thanks. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 03:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged them because they created a loop. Kate Young was a redirect to Catherine Young, a dab-page. I was linking on the dab-page to a person, but the redirect brought me straight back. Night of the Big Windtalk 08:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re your message: Sorry, but the non-deletion was correct. The target of the redirect exists, therefore G8 would not apply. I see what you are trying to do with Template:Texas Pageant Winners and Miss Texas USA. The fix would be to either create an article for Katie Young, unlinking the names on the dabpage that link back to the dabpage as 88.109.60.234 did, or changing the links on the dabpage to a specific redlinked name and then changing the links on other articles to that redlinked article. For example, with Kate Young, the Australian swimmer, you would change the dabpage link to Kate Young (swimmer) and then change 2000 Oceania Swimming Championships and 2000 Oceania Swimming Championships links to Kate Young (swimmer). Having a link on an article/template go to a dabpage is not unreasonable if there is no article at this time on that person. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Placing of the terrorism infobox at List of organisations known as the Irish Republican Army article
My view that the only thing more injudicious in placing the terrorism infobox at List of organisations known as the Irish Republican Army was edit warring to revert its removal. If you make that edit, or similar, again without a clear and current consensus to do so I will block you indefinitely - for as long as it takes you to recognise the requirement to consider the effect of your actions before taking them. I am of the opinion that if you were not aware of the likely consequences to the editing atmosphere by your contribution, you are not sufficiently versed in the issues to be of benefit - and if you were then you are not fit to remain an editor. This is an official warning, and the only one you will receive regarding this issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? If you try to get your point across in such a rude way, you are totally wrong. First thing you should do is give me arguments why my action was wrong by giving me links to prior discussions. If not, you can expect a complaint about incivility! Night of the Big Windtalk 22:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed my comments - and I fail to see where I was rude; you may not like what I had to say, but that is a different thing entirely. I shall ask at my talkpage whether other editors feel my language was inappropriate, however, and be guided by their comments. You are always able to bring a complaint about my actions at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents at any point. I do not need to find the discussion(s) where consensus was decided, as that is your task should you wish to challenge it. You are on notice that there is an existing consensus, and that you should not make edits contrary to it in the meantime. I am sure that the editors habitually editing the article will be able to provide you with links, should you ask. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You were unnecessary rude, threatening to block me straight away (I had only reverted twice). But still I do not have any link to a discussion. Not from you, not from anybody else, nor at the template, nor at the article. Without that, I consider the consensus as non-existant and organized by shouting and roaring. Night of the Big Windtalk 12:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Article List of organisations known as the Irish Republican Armyfalls under WP:1RR per the notice at the top of the Article Talk page. All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
There is a clear guideline on Wikipedia about the use of the word Terrorism. Please read it before editing.
Aha, he could have told be that! But still I think he is not fit as an editor, admin and oversighter, acting so blunt and rude. Night of the Big Windtalk 19:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked 24 hrs for edit warring / 3RR on Kevorkian article
Actually - both of you were clearly edit warring and over the 3RR limit on the Kevorkian article. Both accounts are blocked for 24 hrs for violating 3RR, and I have full-protected the article for 3 days.
Good faith discussion on talk pages is mandatory. Edit warring is not OK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you need any help with that, just ask. The disruptive editor involved has a long history on these topics, and this can be shown clearly (for instance, go back a way on the talk history of Action T4 and just be astounded by the disruption. Jabbsworth (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ANI ClaudioSantos
I hope you put your opinions there too, or else it's just seen as me vs him. Jabbsworth (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suicide bag
Please rethink the deletion. There are historical details there, which will be lost. No suicide bags are for sale anywhere in the world at the moment, as far as I know, so this is not promotional material. People have a right to know who used to sell the bags, etc. Jabbsworth (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They can look it up in the Golden Pages or do an internet search for it. It does not fit in an encyclopia. Night of the Big Windtalk 17:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But do you not agree that the details deleted actually are part of the history of the suicide bag, and that deleting them in fact makes the article less information-rich? Jabbsworth (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exit international
You are suggesting that any mention of this entity is promotional. I disagree, that's nonsense. You seem to have a dislike of the organisation, or Nitschke. I suggest you take this to ANI perhaps, because it looks like we are going to clash big time over this. Jabbsworth (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then fight it out with Claudio. In fact, you are as much POV-pushing as he his doing. Be aware of the possible consequences. You don't have exactly a clean sheet. Night of the Big Windtalk 18:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
