User talk:Passionless

I reserve the right to edit this page however I feel, this is not wikipedia, this is some guys mailbox like do-hickey

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Passionless, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 22:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Russian inventions

Thank you for fixing of spelling and grammar in that article. Cheers! Greyhood (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Current Events

Sure, let's talk about it, but I think we should keep what I have done until we come up with a better system. To be brutally honest, the current layout I created was much better than the haphazard way people place the newslines before. You got news everywhere back then. At least we have some semblance of order right now.

I welcome your input on this matter, and let's work together, not against each other. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 03:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Current Events Portal Reform Taskforce

I have decided to set up a page for us to coordinate our actions. For starters, the page is within my userspace. We can make it a WikiProject if we can. Please visit the taskforce page, and join in on the discussion! Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Arab–Israeli_conflict

as i politely asked in my revert edit summary, please discuss your changes on the article's talk page first. i believe you are trying to remove a neutral statement and replace it with POV. as for your comment on my talk page, i realize this can be a contentious issue, but please remember WP:Civility and try to work constructively instead of unilaterally. WookieInHeat (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Current Events: Koran burning

Hi Passionless. I noticed that you recently removed a news items that I posted from the current events portal for September 10, and placed the linked articles on yesterday's news under the previous news story; however, I'm a bit confused about this. The news story (along with the external news articles) that I posted for September 10 states that Terry Jones is retracting his cancellation of the Koran burning, while the news item on September 9 simply states that he's cancelled it. They're two different events, which is what I was aiming for. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Changing other user's comments

Hi again; why did you change WookieInHeat's message, turning around its meaning? Such an action if forbidden; please see WP:TPO. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

RE

I moved discussion to the article talk page [1] to allow others to comment if they wish. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Current Events category

Sorry for not replying sooner, the real world kept me away!

The new categories look great, and thanks for everything! Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 20:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Greek mail resumption

• My reading of the source was that mail resumed after midnight which would make it Friday. The two day moratorium started on Wednesday. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• Further to the message, I use the dates mentioned in the articles. Otherwise, news stories published in Australia will often be a day ahead of articles published in the United States. As well, it will enter the historical record on the day the event occurred rather than the day it was reported. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to Portal

I haven't the time to debate with you over your edits to Portal:Current events re shelling by the Koreas. I frankly believe you are out of your depth. As a courtesy, I advise you that I have brought this up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Can someone have a pronto look please. 125.239.205.98 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Slurpee Summit

Hello Passionless. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Slurpee Summit to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Tesla Motors

Wikipedia works by consensus, which is how the article came to its current form. Please do not make major controversial changes as you did. See Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Be_cautious_with_major_changes:_discuss for details. Ng.j (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Troubling User

Please look out for contributions made by User Uhnix on the current events portal. Uhnix has been using references from an online news source called voice of Jihad, which asserts that the Taliban have the right to take over Afghanistan, and that Nato forces must die. Furthermore Uhnix has used "Invaders" and "terrorist forces" when referring to Nato trues on the current event portal. All this is incredibly biased, and must be reverted when caught. I have been doing so already. Thanks for you time, Sopher99 (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

While America did invade, they are not invaders anymore, there is a new government run by afghans who allow them to say. The taliban, a group of 30,000 does not have right over the Afgan government, a group of over 1 mil afghans. But thats not the point. A jihadist website is not a reliable source. Sopher99 (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Rollback and reviewer granted

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Two other things:

• Please be sure to warn vandals, using user warning templates as necessary.
• I've given you reviewer rights. See WP:REVIEWER and Help:Pending changes for more information. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Passionless about weather?

Hi. The entry I added to the current events portal that you reverted mentioned some significant weather events that also affected areas in other countries. For example Carmen (storm) and Hurricane Igor were mentioned and these storms affected other countries. It's also interesting because of the "upside-down winter" phenomenon mentioned in several entries and affecting the entire Northern Hemisphere as well as the Olympic springlike weather being of interest to the athletes competing at the Winter Olympic Games. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, uh, I guess I failed to fully explain myself, while the original subject was newsworthy, and you can find it in the current events in their respectful time periods, an article about these old events itself is not news. Reminiscing about news is not news. Passionless (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Gaza War

You should follow BRD. Please self revert and use the talk page. That article is a magnet for edit warring and trouble and you are not starting off on the right foot.Cptnono (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Palestine

In reply to your comment about my participation, I've been watching the discussion, but my input, nor your's and Alinor, are going to discount the fact that the majority seems opposed to any renaming. I thought that debate on the matter from the Wikipedia community was warranted, and that is what we're getting.

As for renaming the current Palestine article and making a Palestine (disambiguation) article, which is what I take your comment to mean, I think a separate discussion would be warranted to remove any confusion about what's going on. People will strike both proposals down if your try and merge them. NightW's opposition to such a move, while notable, would not be a decisive factor IMHO. Int21h (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well according to Oncenawhile, 'support/move' does have the majority once the irrelevant comments are removed. And, yes that is what my compromise was going to be, though I'm not sure that I have to settle now that non biased numbers from google in our favour have been brought in. Passionless (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure either. This is a controversial topic, so I think its best to progress slowly and deliberately. So, in brief, what's your current proposal, including other page moves/renames etc.? Int21h (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with this compromise for the time being. Any change is better than no change considering the current state of these articles. Int21h (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly and we can come back again when world events in our favour happen with a stronger argument. Passionless (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Lambda Sigma Upsilon

Hello, thank you for you edits under the membership section on Lambda Sigma Upsilon. You really assisted in cleaning up the section and adding more neutrality to it. I would also like to thank you for remving the link under the HIV section. Although, I believe we differ in types of formatting and interpretation of a notable alumni and the need for prose I do believe you attempting to increase neutrality in the article.Monarca7 (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to note that none of the material used is copyrighted. I would also like to note that although some material has come off the national website I have been granted permission for its use from the organizations national secretary and public relations chair. I am currently in the process of editing the article to be read from a more neutral point of view. I do not know what the next step is please inform me.Monarca7 (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

reinstating edits of banned users.

Hi Passionless. Please see Wikipedia:Banning policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors. Thanks,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I already did, what I'm doing is fine- "they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them."- it's not like I'm just reinstating all his edits, just those I would make myself. Passionless (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The wording you cite applies to editing on behalf of banned users, not reverting to the version preferred by a banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I DON'T CARE. Passionless (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Passionless, I noticed your recent reverts, and then saw the comments above, and am concerned. You appear to be reverting in the edits of a banned user without regard for their quality. Can you explain why, for example, you've reinstated these edits of a banned user? They appear to contain large amounts of unsourced personal opinion. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, did you read the edit summary?? Did you check the source for all that information like I did?? Passionless (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if that sounded rude, I was mad at the time for another reason. Anyways if you read my edit summary, I did explain that the source does back up all the information I re-added. Also it is important that the final version of the document the article is about is discussed within the article. Passionless (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Passionless. Actually, I did look for the source for the section in question, and I had difficulty finding some of it. For example, could you show me the source for this paragraph?

The 2nd Lebanon War again shows that Israel cannot survive in this region, unless all the people of the region believe that Israel has the leadership, military capabilities, and social robustness to allow her to deter those of its neighbors who wish to harm her. Israel must - politically and morally - seek peace with its neighbors and make necessary compromises but must do so from a position of social, political and military strength.

Maybe it's there and I just missed it. Also, as noted below, all articles in this topical area are on WP:1RR, which means any editor who reverts the article more than once in 24 hours is likely to be blocked, so please be cautious. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the section from the source that deals with that part-

"37. The 2nd Lebanon War has brought again to the foreground for thought and discussion issues that some parts of Israeli society had preferred to suppress: Israel cannot survive in this region, and cannot live in it in peace or at least non-war, unless people in Israel itself and in its surroundings believe that Israel has the political and military leadership, military capabilities, and social robustness that will allow her to deter those of its neighbors who wish to harm her, and to prevent them - if necessary through the use of military force - from achieving their goal."

Sorry about the 2nd revert, I just wasn't thinking, but I did undo my revert once I remembered the rule.

On another matter, could you please help me with a case of Abuse of process. While there is an ongoing discussion on the subject of the title of List of Israeli attacks on Palestinians, 2011, brew has taken it upon himself to change the title to "List of Israeli attacks on Palestinian targets, 2011" and create a redirect page with the title "List of Israeli attacks on Palestinians, 2011" so that no one can undo his unilateral movements without undergoing a long and unnecessary process. Where do I report people for gaming the system, and could you please return the article to its original location while the progressive discussion seeks a consensus. Thanks, Passionless (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that. Perhaps I should have cited a smaller section of that paragraph, specifically, "Israel must - politically and morally - seek peace with its neighbors and make necessary compromises..." It looks to me like someone's personal opinion; I see nothing in the material you've brought about it.

On the other topic, an RFM process will typically work all this out anyway, usually within a week or two, so I don't see a need for any other action at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have posted 38 as well, so

"38. These truths do not depend on one's partisan or political views. Israel must - politically and morally - seek peace with its neighbors and make necessary compromises. At the same time, seeking peace or managing the conflict must come from a position of social, political and military strength, and through the ability and willingness to fight for the state, its values and the security of its population even in the absence of peace."

On the second topic, gaming of the system always does work out, it's that he is purposefully screwing up the system in his favour. If gaming the system is "an improper use of policy and is forbidden", than where do I complain about cases of gaming the system?? Passionless (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that certainly helps, though it raised another issue - it appears that the material was a direct quotation that did not even use quotation marks, so it's some sort of plagiarism or copyright violation. How much of that material was copied word-for-word from the source, without quotation?

Regarding the other question, I'm not aware of any specific board for "gaming the system" issues. And while I've seen many examples of people gaming the system, I don't recall seeing anyone specifically sanctioned for it, since whether or not someone is doing so is highly subjective. I'd still recommend letting the RFM process run its course, as a much more productive use of your time. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ya, the whole thing is very close to the original source, I guess I'll fully run through it, re-wording directly copied parts, before re-adding.

So, it seems gaming the system is de facto an acceptable practice, so anytime I want a new title I can make the move and force people to use RFM to try and move it back, if they get a consensus. Don't worry, I won't do that as I'm not here to insert my POV like others. Passionless (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that the vast majority of page moves are non-controversial, and are just done, without an RFM. That's the normal process. It's only when they're disputed that they go to RFM. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ya, I know, I just happen to dabble quite a bit in the Israel-Arab field where it is all controversial. Passionless (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You should be aware that all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.

• Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty.

• Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

For further information, see WP:ARBPIA.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You had better self revert your last edit, or I will report you for edit warring and you will be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Why Me Why U (talk • contribs) 03:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

3RR? Passionless -Talk 03:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

1RR on all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict - as two other editors have already explained to you , right above. Please self revert, as I am sure you would not want to be blocked - and this is a clear-cut case. Why Me Why U (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Lol, your account is less than an hour old, and you are already making threats, giving a !vote in a long discussion, and making controversial edits plus vandalising a chart. Anything to declare? Passionless -Talk 03:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. A brand new account picking up the harassment/reverts right where brewcrewer left off. Truly unprecedented. Sol (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)