I haven't been on the gwen stanfini page, Ive been looking at maths all night for an assignment. So you've got the wrong vandal buddy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mako45 (talk • contribs)
If you can please give me the ip address instead of creating a new account, I could figure out the problem. As it stands, you are probably on a dynamic or shared ip address, so another person with the ip address has vandalized, not you. If so, ignore the message. --Dark Fallstalk10:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.
Just dropping by to say "thank you" for supporting me in my recent my RfA. I passed the vote, and am now an admin. It will take me some getting used to with the new tools, but I thank you again for the trust. Have a good one, and, as always, happy editing! Jmlk1705:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. You recently accused a user of being a sockpuppet on AIV. I've removed the listing, and am now moving it to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets where it should have been placed. Please report all sock puppets there in the future.
Thank you, DarkFalls, for commenting on my RfA, which closed successfully with a tally of 76/0/1! I hope I will meet your expectations, and be sure I will continue trying to be a good editor as well as a good administrator :) If I may be of any assistance to you in the future (or if you see me commit some grievous error :), please drop me a line on my Talk page.
Hi Mr DarkFalls, thank you for answering my question on Alison's Talk page.
About my link to Ireland, the website contains a lot of researched information on dental problems as well, written by a dentist. It is not a website made to sell anything online. So why do you think that it was considered as spam?
Thank you.
Anto.
The source should contain information that is not covered by other reliable sources already in the article. The website you linked may be considered spam, because it contains information that may potentially be used to sell a service, in this case the services of a dentist. --Dark Fallstalk05:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the template for citing my school roll book. Should I add a note for how people can access the book in case they want to check the info? Can you suggest a way to do this? Can I do it by entering another field in the template? Toadtoad09:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Is the roll book info available on the web? If not, just enter the year, educational facility and class of the roll into the template. A suitable finishing template could look like this:
{{cite book |title=Freshman roll class|url=http://www.google.com |year=2004 |publisher= [[Harvard University]] |page=If you want to be specific... }}
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XIII - June 2007
The June 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
A month ago or so, you have made a new signature for me. It worked well, until I got this message in my prefernces. My signature was over 255 characters, so I can't use my signature. Help!!!!! Runewiki77721:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try [[User:Runewiki777|<strong><span style="color:#ADD8E6">Ru<span style="color:#00B7EB">n<span style="color:#2A52BE">eW<span style="color:#0000FF">i<span style="color:#120a8f">ki</span></span></span></span></span></strong>]]<sup>[[User talk:Runewiki777|777]]</sup> which should be within the 255 limit... Cheers!--Dark Fallstalk06:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/DrKiernan
Hello. I read your oppose comment on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/DrKiernan. I'm not sure if you've looked at the various other comments that have been made since but I'm coming here to ask you to reconsider your position. I don't know DrKiernan and have no particular stake in this RfA. I do, however, have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and I'm wary of the shortage of admins and the sometimes peculiar turns that RfAs can take. You opposed on grounds that the candidate is looking for a badge or trophy, yet I really can't see where you got that impression. From what I can see, DrKiernan is a trusted user and even admins with fairly low activity are useful to the project as a whole. I think he has provided quite a bit more information about himself since you gave your opinion and a number of good points in his favour have been made. So if you have a minute, please consider looking at the RfA again. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson15:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for creating a new signature for me. I slightly modifyed it.
The Special Barnstar
I Runewiki777 awards this barnstar to DarkFalls for creating 2 great signatures. And also for working above and beyond to make people happy. RuneWiki77718:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AIV
Man, you are quite on top of the anti-vandalism work...gotta love it. Keep it up, and happy editing my Aussie friend :) Jmlk1709:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I removed your old username (User:Kzrulzuall), just to be safe. Is that fine with you, or do you plan on using Kzrulzuall at all? Daniel07:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You probably should re-create it yourself, just to prevent someone abusing exactly that. Writing something like this (the May 15 summary) by making a null edit somewhere also helps for people who arrived at Special:Contributions/Kzrulzuall via links when you had your old account (ie. {{user}} etc.). Just a thought. Daniel07:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't! I just shifted something today and must have accidentally put a space in there, but felt too lazy to fix it. Thanks! Nice new name, by the way, I was wondering where KZ had gone! Riana⁂10:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I just could not understand what was wrong with stating that Steven Gerrard is considered to be one of the worlds best footballers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3E933333Boy (talk • contribs)
The thing that is wrong with that statement is that many people (such as fans of Man U or Chelsea) will consider that as false. As a general guideline, the situation in which a player could be considered "great" include induction into the English football hall of fame (English players), or the FIFA 100(international). Furthermore, the information should be accompanied by a reference to multiple press material (BBC Sport, NYT et cetera ) stating it as a fact. As I am not an expert on this topic, I suggest asking people at the Football WikiProject for further information. --Dark Fallstalk06:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for wishing me happy birthday! I had a great day - well, it could have been better, I spent all day studying for an exam! But let's concentrate on the positives, hmmm? :) My friends got me a great cake, a lot like this one, and since you've been so kind, I saved you a piece. Hope you enjoy it, and the rest of your day :) Riana(talk)10:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nooo, no more headings, please :) Thanks for the wishes, hope you're doing great!
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Fergus McMaster, by Tiggerjay (talk·contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Fergus McMaster seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Fergus McMaster, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Fergus McMaster itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 207:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you X 100
Thank you very much for supporting my RfA, which closed successfully yesterday... W00t! I hope to be a great admin (and editor) and I'm sure you can tell that my use of a large, boldfaced, capital "T" and a big checkmark image in this generic "thank you" template that I swiped from some other user's Talk Page that I totally mean business! If you need anything in the future or if you see that I've done something incorrectly, please come to my Talk Page and let me know. So now I've got a bunch of reading to do.... see you around! - eo 13:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC}
Image:TAM A350.JPG
I've added my reply on first fair use to the image page. It is unlikely (if not impossible) that there is a free image available of a future airplane when none have been built yet. The only source of images would be the aircraft builder, and thus could only be used on a fair use basis.--Dali-Llama14:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dark, in response to your latest comment: I can't speak for the other articles, but on the TAM Linhas Aéreas article, if there is a paragraph commenting on the purchase of Airbus A350s by TAM, it is reasonable (if not expected) that we illustrate how these planes would look in TAM's colors. Therefore it cannot be replaced (The better question is replaced with what? The CG image is the only image available), and it is unique in that sense, as the picture below it is illustrating another plane, a Boeing 777 (There's a point in that they all look alike, I know, but still--both are important in their own contexts). I can't defend its placement in other articles, but at least in the TAM article it matches the two criteria you've mentioned (which have to do specifically with the availability of freer alternatives, I believe)--Dali-Llama13:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring - Zadar
Hello! I don't know who to apply to, but I see that you are the member of anti-vandalism project so maybe you could help me. I'm trying to edit an objective history of Croatian city Zadar but I have a lot of problems with user Giovanni Giove. As I can see all of Croatian editors who are editing anything about Croatian history have problems with him. The point is that he is an obvious follower of "Irredenta Italiana", political movement of Italian extremists, which is perceived in Croatia the same as fascism. He is even not trying to hide it, since his source is History of Zara (italian) - Irredentismo page! I know this is free encyclopedia but this is too much!
Back to the Zadar article... He deletes anything connected with Croats and Croatia, he doesn't appear on the talk page, manipulating with data and changing the contexts in the text is normal acting for him. He even noted me as a sock puppet of some other banned user. I don't want to be banned because of the reverting, but in the same time I cannot let him to edit shameless lies about the city I'm living in. So I need help. I apreciate if you take a look at the page and the talk page. If you can't help me maybe you can refer me to someone else. Is there any need for arbitration or something like that? Regards. Zenanarh00:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thank you for not edit warring with him on the article. Important things to consider about this article, are the reliability of sources and the neutral point of view policy. You definitely seem to be correct about Zadar being in Croatia, as the country code for the official website is .hr. I'll have a talk with him about his edit warring and POV, but if that doesn't work I suggest you file an RFC regarding his behavior. --Dark Fallstalk01:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At present day the city is in Croatia. But it has joined Croatia after 1947, after the expulsion of the Italian autochtone population. The above user shall stop to change the article in a pro croatian way, selecting the single sources to enforce their own poin of wiev. This supposed movement I should be member was dismantailed about 70 years ago, and ws not an 'extremist' movement. I can provide sources to show that official history of Croatia (that one you can read in newspaper or books) is heavy poisoned by nationalistic claims. I am not responsable if, for nationalistic pourpouses, Croatians want to enforce the idea that all the territory of present day Croatia were ALWAYS Croatian. Zara was, as a matter of fact, a mainly Italian city, for history, language, culture. Today is not, but I wrote of History and not of present day. The abpive usere shall stop to wrote mass, enforcinc POV ad he did in the 'middle age' section. I beg you to correct the masg you left in my page. Last thinh now Maraschino article is tottaly referrencied, it was the above user to start edit wars, and not me! --Giovanni Giove08:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot: I use several source, and in my edits I always keep in mind the concept of 'neutrality'. Of course it is hard to be neutral with the followers of extreme Nationalist ideas.--Giovanni Giove08:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, please present your argument on the talk page of the article. Unless I am mistaken, Zenanarh stopped his edit warring immediately when I asked him to stop, but you didn't. Please read the reliable sources policy, stop accusing others of being "abusive" or "nationalists", and stop editing the page until the issue is sorted out. If you do that, I will immediately retract my comments on your talk, and apologize. Thank you. --Dark Fallstalk08:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zadar was in Croatia from 10th or 11th century until 1409. From 15th to 18th it was under Venetian ruling and after that in Croatia again, since Croatia was a part of Austrian monarchies. It was under Italy from 1920 to 1943. These are historical facts. Also Zadar is the city very important for Croatian history, a half of that history was written in Zadar. Since Venice ruled Dalmatia for a long time ~400 years, Italian language was forced as an administrative one, so we have situation in 19th century that 15.000 - 20.000 people in Dalmatia with political and economical privilegies tried to show that Dalmatia was Italian land. The population of Dalmatia in that century was ~400.000 people. In addition, those "Italians" were actually pro-Italians, Croats in fact the mostly. I have scientific research which shows that only ~1.500 of them were real Italians, by the roots. In those ages (19th) Italian irredentism was born and is reborn again after the collapse of former Yugoslavia (17 years ago). And Giovane you really are the follower of that movement, don't deny it. Your edits are anything but not objective. You are deleting anything where Croats or Croatia were mentioned not only on that page as I can see and what is the best of all, you are deleting the parts of sentences used from the sources so it have changed meaning. That's not really objective. And you are not the one who can decide what is objective. The way you do it is expression of your personal POV. It has nothing to do with official history. If you have some relevant data please put it on the talk page before deleting and reverting in the article. And by the way, your referenced history of Maraschino is referenced history of Luxardo family, not Maraschino in fact. My old family in Dalmatia produced Rožolj (Maraschino) for 300 years. Administrators should inspect all your edits about anything in Dalmatia or Croatia in Wikipwedia. It would be quite enough... You really shouldn't edit anything this way. Regards Zenanarh10:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there's nothing I can do I agree, but actually this is not fair to put me in that position. Now I'm the one who must prove that official history is relevant. My edits were followed by the sources and explained in the talk page. His edits were not. Non of it. He reverted the page into his last version with the comment that it is some other version! And now you ask me is it OK with me? Doesn't it mean that he is rewarded for his violent editing and reverting? Just look at the sources. Some of that sources are used from both of us, but he used it selectively! He has finally appeared on the talk page and... Just look at the talk page and you'll see how mr. Giovane discuss. He accused me of lying. He didn't even sign his posts. He did at the end but his comments were placed among mine comments so it lost the original shape. And he even deleted a part of my comment which detected his manipulation! Now I have repaired it, but what can I expect furthermore? Please take a look at it... That's all I ask. My last version was the objective one and it was just a little part of the article, since I didn't reach the other parts yet. And by the way that other parts are extreme POV with data from irredentistic page written in Italian language. Without translation. Is it transparent? Is it Wiki policy? If we must start from this position then you force me to write all history book of Zadar in the talk page or all of Britannica and other official history books in all languages and it still means nothing cos it can take a several years of fighting over every word! In that case sources mean nothing. With this starting position you have rewarded him even his edits were extreme POV! Unbelievable! Regards Zenanarh12:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, as it seems that you do not agree with the revision, we now have to find an revision in which both parties can agree to, to make things fair. I have in mind this revision, which seems to be pretty neutral. Feel free to list the revisions in which you will be happy with, and I'll compare them and come up with an solution. Cheers. --Dark Fallstalk12:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I agree. Although there are still some wrong data, that is much better as starting position than the present version. But I want to ask you this: who can stop him from reverting, deleting and editing without consensus on the talk page? Zenanarh14:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt he will edit that article again until the dispute has been resolved. In the unlikely case that he does that, a full protection might be necessary for the article, until consensus is reached. If we assume good faith, I am pretty sure he will refrain from doing that. --Dark Fallstalk00:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The present situation is ok. User Zen can edit it in a proper way. User Zen. shall no more delete my sources, to put his own instead. He shall no more cut and paste, he shall use trustable sources. The comments he added were copied from some Croatian tourist site (of terrible level BTW). Most of all he shall forgot some nationalistc POV.--Giovanni Giove20:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I presume both parties will not mind if I revert to this edition, on the condition that there will not be any further editing, besides uncontroversial grammar corrections, until the dispute has resolved. If so, reply back here with confirmation... If you do have any problems, comment here and I'll try to fix it. --Dark Fallstalk05:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he thinks that silence can keep the status quo. But there's no way that article stays like this. I'm preparing the sources. It is true that I've previously used sources from the net (tourist sites) but it's also true that those sites use reliable data from the history books. I didn't have to translate it that way. The most richest history of Zadar was written in 3 toms of "Povijest Zadra I,II,III" in Croatian language in the very same place - Zadar, with the basis in all known historical sources - Zadar archives in Zadar - in the first place (old documents, inscriptions, papers, books,... in Latin, Dalmatian, Croatian and Italian language), as well as the sources written in Venice in Italian language and others. Giove uses that irredentismo page which is historical fake created by irredentists in Dalmatia in the second half of 19th century. The best of all is that even these Dalmatian irredentists were the mostly of Croatian roots, not Italian! I can wait a few days more, but not too long. Cheers.Zenanarh17:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DarkFalls, It still amazes me that otherwise "anonymous" editors take the time to place !votes and comments on RfAs. Whilst I would have normally thanked you at the time of you leaving your message, the importance of my not appearing to be canvassing prevented me from so doing. Now that everything has progressed successfully I can finally thank you. I intend to uphold a style of good adminship and will welcome your further comments at any time in the future, even if they are in the form of admonishment. I will be happy to help as an admin wherever and whenever I can --VStalk23:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're awesome!
The Special Barnstar
You're an amazingly prolific contributor and a totally all-round nice guy. Just wanted to say that. You rock! - Alison☺07:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DarkFalls. Thank you for your support and kind words in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance.
.jpg)
