Jump to content

User talk:Dominic/Archive9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

uhhh?

What? [1] Can somebody help me off the floor? Hamster Sandwich 10:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at this?

I'd appreciate it. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Zen-master Jayjg (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm too late, but I'll go make a note of this on the RFAr page. Dmcdevit·t 19:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, someone you had permanently blocked on 17/Nov as a "classic troll" is back making edits under 210.187.49.65 (talk · contribs). In less than two dozen edits made from this IP since returning on 20/Dec, the following gems obtain:

You could also look at the dozen-odd other edits made by the self-declared prodigal. Kindly take suitable corrective action to protect WP. Regards, ImpuMozhi 01:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Btw

I blocked Gibraltarian for 48 hours. He started using a dynamic IP to remove the disputed tag. I think I've officially had enough. :) If he comes back and does it again, it'll be permanent. I protected the page too. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AOL Block

Hi -- are you hiding from your books again? If so, please release another AOL block. Merovingian has blocked me from editing -- based on that rotating proxy. New administrators seem to go through a phase of trying to punish all AOL users. I left him the note below. Thanks -- appreciate your help. WBardwin 06:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you have blocked an AOL proxy address -- which randomly rotates among users. AOL users cannot control which number they are assigned, and blocking the number for any length of time is ineffective in fighting vandalism. Please see my user page User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection for a history of adminstrative discussion and action regarding these blocks. They seem to hit me often. Please release your block. Information below. Thank you. WBardwin 06:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your IP address is 207.200.116.202. Please include this address, along with your username, in any queries you make. Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Merovingian. The reason given is: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Kkkboi". The reason given for Kkkboi's block is: "vandal/troll".
The dingbat blocked the proxy number for 24 hours. Don't they give you admin's any training at all? I'd appreciate if you would intervene for me. Thanks. WBardwin 07:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking back in. I'm afraid frustration boiled over and I got cranky -- I have so little time to waste right now. Speaking of wasting time on Wiki -- how are your finals? Best wishes. WBardwin 10:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finals

Conga rats on finishing finals <g> Zora 09:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meringue hamsters, as well! I'm sure you'll pass with flying colours! Salut! Hamster Sandwich 09:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A <g> is a grin. Perhaps it would be better as <g> and </g>. I use it because sometimes the colon-paren emoticon does strange things to wikiposts. Another favorite emoticon, little used, is <^^^^^^>, which is the glyph of bared teeth. How primate. Zora 09:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Enough of this ASCII nonsense! Let's have singing, dancing, Java applet emoticons punctuating Wikipedia. Zora 09:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BLINK is so deprecated, so 1990s <g> Ekshully, that's cool. Zora 10:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PP

Sorry, you're right, it slipped my mind. Jayjg (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for voting on my RfA! The final result was (36/1/1), so I'm now an administrator! Shanel 21:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid self-reference

"Avoid" does not bar. In this case, the Nature announcement was notable in its own right. Well, OK, maybe to TV watchers, but I heard it on the radio (NPR) and it was dealt with seriously there. Also, there are a lot of important science pages in Wikipedia with that new template that points back to Nature. That is where people are going to click to find out what is going on and so that is where the information should be. -- Fplay 15:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point conceeded

I see that a later version of the template used to mark the 38 articles as "having errors" now points to to "review" with an appropriate link. In my browser (Firefox) the print is somewhat small and so it is hard to recognize that it is a hotlink. Also, think about people talking about the article (say for the next week or so). What are they going to remember? "Nature". They are not going to remeber that "Mutation" was one of the pages (well, I will now, he but average person will not know to do that). They go to the "Nature" page, which is oh-so-pure and they cannot easliy browse to the relevant news. Even if I use "what links here", I have to jack it up to 500-per-page and the "Wikipedia:External peer review/Nature December 2005" is on the second page. How about just a link to that thing?

This is NOT just some dippy little story. Jimbo is going to be mentiongin this tidbit for the next year or two at every opporunity to do so and you know it. -- Fplay 08:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Main page FA protection

Please do not protect the main page featured article. See user:Raul654/protection Raul654 20:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two to tango

Have you left similar warnings on people who have been reverting my stuff with impugnity? Or am I the only one on your favorite list? Shivraj Singh 05:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive

Dude you are using words without thinking. Disruptive is what these other guys are. I told you this before: Why no one of them disputes what I have written with there references? I have been asking them for 4 months now. Don't you think there is a reason? To me reason is obvious, they have been pushing lies. Somehow you guys cannot see this. This is the source of all problems. WP should be all about references. My list though not having ISBN/publisher info is correct and I have read each book mentioned. (ISBN etc is coming. I am travelling and away from my library). Dab found some titles with word rajput and has added them to references. Though he did not read even a single one of them. Is this how we write history? Wikipedia just allows clueless people to push there point.

Also you should unblock User:Sisodia and apologize to him. Shivraj Singh 06:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zen

I suggested that already. Probably just need to post on AN/I about it. I find that best. I suggested that to Carbonite. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know. He claimed that the vote to extend the probation was "without merit". It was 6-0! Anyway, I'll add the request to AN/I. The thing is, the only reason why he didn't get blocked from it last time was because the extension to all articles came right after his last 3RR violation. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Btw

I added a note about semi protection to the RfP page. If you would like to alter it, go ahead. Getting tired of it being requested. :) And the thing is, looking at the requests, I'd reject them for semi-protection too and I think you'd agree with me. S-P is supposed to be for long, sustained vandalism only. "It's been vandalised for 3 days! Semi protect!". No! :-D Agreed? I see it as a last resort just like full protection. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, as soon as I put it up, SP is now live. :) I'm going to create a separate section on PP for semi protection just like we have for moves only. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, may I draw your attention to this? Zora is a lady editor; gori means "fair (female)" or "white (female)"; in India, such usage amounts to misdemeanour; I bring this to you since this fellow is already known to you.

Also, could you take a view on this, this and the Talk:Rajput page in general? That user's discourse is in general informed by this orientation; the futility of engaging with him is arguably indicated by this, this and other such. I am anxious to see something done, since I hold the views expressed by him in the second paragraph here!! The said gentleman (sic), whose ascertainable contributions to WP began on 08/Dec/05, has filed a complaint alleging bias and incivility by Dbachmann (talk · contribs); do you think you could express a view on that complaint page? In that connection, reference to the contribution records of Shivraj Singh (talk · contribs · block log) and Ss india (talk · contribs · block log) may be useful. Regards, ImpuMozhi 05:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 17:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shivraj Singh

Dmcdevit. I agree with you revert warring is an extremely wasteful thing. Both in terms of time wasted and space on Wikiservers that gets wasted. We have filled up 100KB long each, 15 archives debating the exactly same points. i.e no forward progress at all in last four months. Now in this scenario should we just let WP represent the muslim POV and we should sit silently? An example: Muslims have been touting Ibbetson, a book authored by Ibbetson. Somebody quoted from Ibbetson that Hindu rajputs ceased to be rajputs when they started practicing widow remarriage. Now when the muslims are asked that Ibbetson is saying such a thing why are they still persisting with there claims they have no good answer but just reverts.

Also you have not replied about [User:sisodia] yet. Shivraj Singh 05:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry to hear that you are ill. I wish you get well soon. We will discuss more once you are hale and hearty. Shivraj Singh 17:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main

Hi. I noticed that you just added some interwikis to Template:Main. This has created an extra white space in all the articles that the template is in. The way to fix is is have the <noinclude> be right next to the "}}", so it looks like this: }}<noinclude>, not like this:

}}
<noinclude>

I can't edit it because I'm not an admin, so would you please be able to change it? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 23:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:my arb

Do you really want to bring Qiyamah up again? Perhaps I should notify the rest of the Islamic Guild that you're still harassing me a year after you're unjustified block. I wonder how long it would take to turn an RFC against you into an RFA and then have you disciplined... I suggest you stop harassing me. I also suggest you remove the lie you posted on my RFA. freestylefrappe 23:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. I've talked to you once since the block months ago (twice if you count this), which hardly counts as "harassment". Notify the Guild if you like, my admin actions are always up for review, thogh I don't see what this has to do with that particular set of editors, unless you seem to think that's why I've made the statement, which would be silly. And that incident months ago at Qiyamah has nothing to do with why I think you are unsuitable to adminship. This absurd vandalism warning, though, has a lot to do with it. Perhaps you should read the two policy pages that {{test3}} links to, as they seem to be ones you have trouble with. Happy holidays. Dmcdevit·t 05:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed improper use of test 3 template. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Dominic/Archive9! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 21:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi Dmcdevit! Thank you for your kind support on my RfA. -- Szvest 17:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;[reply]

Gibraltarian

Since Woohookitty has indicated that he's taking a Wikibreak for now, I hope you can "fill in" for him on this issue. Gibraltarian's behavior indicates he is most probably not going to change anytime soon, so this has to be monitored. (BTW, G's IPs are dynamic IPs between 212.120.224.0 and 212.120.231.255, so if he is to be silenced completely, a range block is needed.) --TML1988 21:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of national libraries

Just admiring your fine work in filling out our List of national libraries. I wrote an entry for Mali's this evening... maybe I'll try to hit more of these West African ones soon. Kudos! Thanks for putting in the hours, --Dvyost 07:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Hi, thanks for supporting my request for adminship. If there's ever something I can help you out with please drop me a note. Happy holidays! Jacoplane 16:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry???

Thank you for reverting my user page earlier today. Do you have any idea why I was targeted as a sock puppet? Or was it simply malicious vandalism? -- Metacomet 00:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shi'a rampage

I'm exhausted. Paradoxic has created a Twelver Shi'a template in bright green that he is applying to various articles -- usually so that it overlaps the article text. It is not just Shi'a, but Twelver, and accuses Sunni caliphs of murdering all the imams (described as martyrs). I remove the template and he puts it back -- without marking it as a revert, and marking the edit as minor. He is also feeling his oats on the Islamic conquest of Iran page, which he thinks is a suitable venue for giving his views on Iranian politics.

I have been working on this for hours. No sooner do I NPOV a page than he reverts to his Shi'a version. What next? Do we just play revert war, me trying to recruit Sunni to hold the fort against the Shi'a? I hate this. Zora 04:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beckjord

Hi, I notice you reverted this guy at DreamGuy's user page. If you're still around, could you revert him at Mythology too? He's stalked DG there and put a tag on. I don't want to go over 3RR by reverting it, although it's my view that it's common vandalism to do what he's done. James James 08:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is stalking DreamGuy but I don't want to get involved in that. It was simply that you reverted his vandalising DreamGuy's page so I thought you might revert him elsewhere, given that it would take two clicks. But not to worry. You weren't around and the moment passed. James James 07:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oi vey

User:Fluterst. It's either BD777, Rex or a wannabe. Another extreme POV pusher. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per article blocking

Honestly, I'm not sure where to bring it up. Good idea but I'm not sure if you can revive stuff like that. Maybe leave a note on Brion's page? Not sure. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

In helping to revert Gibraltarian's IP edits. I'm doing range blocks to try to stop him. Apparently the ISP he uses utilizes 212.120.224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231. I might have to SP the 2 talk pages. I'd rather not, but honestly, I have no other ideas. Do you? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he's the only one ever to post using those ranges. But I understand. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template Main help

Need help with editing the template (its protected), to move this section of the template: 

noinclude
{esoteric}
/noinclude

..into this section: 

noinclude
[eo:Ŝablono:Ĉefa]
[fr:Modèle:Détails]
[pl:Szablon:Main]
/noinclude

..so that it looks like: 

noinclude
{esoteric}
[eo:Ŝablono:Ĉefa]
[fr:Modèle:Détails]
[pl:Szablon:Main]
/noinclude

There only needs to be a single "noinclude" section, not two. --Stbalbach 16:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Stbalbach 15:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sig tip, duly noted and fixed. (Honestly, this is a feature they should have implemented long ago!) VeryVerily 22:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I took a look, and it's clear that one of them was Enviroknot, and the other was likely Yuber using an open proxy again. It seems a bit late to do anything about it at this point, though - what do you think? Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! No, sorry, I meant CltFn. Enviroknot is not CltFn. For that matter, neither is Chaosfeary or Mistress Selena Kyle. There are a lot of names being bandied about as socks these days, but these all appear to be independent editors. Jayjg (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Have you noticed this nonsense starting up again? [2] Jayjg (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Z1xcvbn

I asked Jayjg for a sock check and gave him the evidence. Jay is good about getting to that stuff. I'd be floored if Z1xcvbn isn't a sock of Fluterst. How do I keep getting into this crap? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks from Deathphoenix

Hi Dmcdevit,

I just wanted to thank you for supporting me in my RfA. To tell you the truth, I was surprised by all the support I've gotten. I never saw myself as more than an occasional Wiki-hobbyist.

My wife sends her curses, as Wikipedia will likely suck up more of my time. She jokingly (I think) said she was tempted to log on to Wikipedia just to vote Oppose and let everyone know that she didn't want her husband to be an admin.

I'll make sure your trust in me is founded. Your vote meant a lot because I've seen you around and also respect your judgement. --Deathphoenix 14:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. What's it like in Phoenix? I've always wanted to visit, just because of the name. --Deathphoenix 15:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hahaha... thanks for the advice. --Deathphoenix 18:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks

Hi you just blocked CDThieme and Miskin for 24 hours each for 3RRvios. I just did that and then unblocked them. I thought that protecting the articles and allowing them to discuss their edits on the talk page would be far more productive. Can I unblock them? Izehar 18:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to know what to do - protecting and sparing the block allows them to discuss and reach a compromise rather than edit-war, whereas blocking creates bad feelings and gets in the way of negotiation. The problem is that when a page is protected, it is alway protected in the "wrong version" from one party's point of view. Anyway, thanks for making the decision for me - I'll unprotect the first page now (given that there will be no edit-warring). Izehar 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help

Look at this. Apparently, Ral pre-emptively protected a whole slew of stub templates. I think we need to unprotect them. I mean, most of these hadn't been touched since May. Just no reason to do that. What do you think? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That works for me. Yep. I see well over *100* that he protected. Look at this. That's insane. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I put a message on his talk page first. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm retired from the RfP page, btw. I'm tired of being told that I have all of these biases I don't have. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that. I might return. For now, I'm going to go back to just being an editor who uses his admin powers when need be. I just fixed up a bunch of stubs someone put up on California politicians. I hadn't done that kind of work in ages. Btw, the 29th is my 1st year anniversary at this joint. :) I did make some edits to the translation page you gave me. If it's what you are looking for, I'll continue. If not, I'll bug off. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Go [[3]] to comment on Ral's actions. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll do some more. btw, no I do not speak Spanish. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Found a good resource for you on the article we are working on

Here is lots of information for the article. Lots and lots. :) I'm starting to incorporate some of it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

So you want to become a history major huh, well do you know the periods of the Han Dynasty, and the Jin Dynasty Whopper 21:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey don't worry

I already got screamed at about it. Apparently, I'm a racist, pro-nuclear, destructive, censoring jerk who is looking to run Wikipedia into the ground. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, dmc, gibnews' unblock request came while I was sleeping. By the time I woke up, the block had passed. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) I'm just tired of this. Happy 1st anniversary to me. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
here and my response here. I know I ranted but I'm sick of being told what I am. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year

Hello, I wish you and your family a prosperous and happy New Year 2006! We shall surely remain actively involved in the Project Wikipedia. --Bhadani 16:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish

Sorry I can't be of much help. I left my Spanish dictionary at school when I came home for break, and tomorrow I'm leaving for vacation. I made a couple changes that I believe are correct, but I'll take a look at the article when I return to school and make sure everything's cool. Talk to you later, --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quran

Dunno if you're still up, but we've got a user at Quran who is extremely disturbed by a photo of a woman with a bare arm looking at a Qur'an page. Counting socks, has reverted seven times in the last day and a half. I'm over 3RR on this one, I think -- I consider it vandalism. But feel free to scold me too if you're up. Zora 08:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Gibraltarian sock puppets

Hi Dmcdevit, as Woohookitty has decided to give up :-( he's forwarded me to you. The umpteenth sock puppet of Gibraltarian is here. He's User:Gibo1, althought I'd bet that he's registered Gibo2, Gibo3... Best regards --Ecemaml 10:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, there is a list to add to of his socks. It's here. I'll add the ones you did today. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look. Btw, I blocked G's IP for 90 minutes. I know. I said I wouldn't touch him but I had no idea if you were still around or not. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, range blocks are pretty simple. Let's say you had a user with an IP of 127.50.34.2. If you wanted to block everyone in the 127.50.34.0 range, the verbage is "127.50.34.0/24". /23 would be used if you wanted to block 2 consecutive ranges, like 127.50.34 and 35. /22 would do 34, 35, 36 and 37. /21 does 8 ranges, so 34. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41. /20 does 16 ranges. /19 does 32, etc. It's actually pretty simple. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My wiki-association

Hello, this is my first edit of the year 2006 – and I am sure that I shall always continue with the Project Wikepedia: I pride my association with the Project. --Bhadani 13:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read these

This and this. Wonders just never cease. Ben had posted in other people's evidence pages a few days ago. I reverted him. So of course, he did it again and I asked Raul to warn Ben for me and classic Ben ensued. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


And now Ben is blackmailing me

And that isn't too strong of a word. He's threatening to put these emails as evidence unless we drop the user conduct case. If that isn't blackmail, I don't know what is. Please comment. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti/Workshop#Blackmail_and_threats_are_not_permissible. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa thanks

Hello Dmcdevit. Thank you for supporting my Rfa and your nice comment! :) I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chimera again

I'm back (having hurt one's hand does interfere with wiki-ing) and I would appreciate if you would return your attention to Chimera, I believe the state of play two months ago was that there were three items in dispute; during my enforced absence DreamGuy reverted all three, and presented a fallacious argument on one of them (the geographical Chimaera in Lycia) I intend to restore all three, but would value your input. Septentrionalis 21:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken your advice, and hope that this will avoid another blind reversion. Do you see any evidence for his claim of consensus? or is this simply "I am common-sense and consensus, on those matters to which I confine my intervention." Is there a means of discipline for false edit-summaries?
As for the Lycian geography; I don't think there is any serious dispute. The claim of antient geographers is attested by every source that I would expect to meantion it. The identification with the modern site was made in 1845, and I see no particular reason to doubt it. There are wider issues with that whole school of myth-interpretation, but they belong under Euhemerus. Septentrionalis 21:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go!

...for having a clue. I, Woohookitty hereby award you the second Cluestick award because well. You wanted one.
Hey, no fair! Does that count? :) Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't heard from You (Eddie)

Hello, Dmcdevit. It's been long sice You talked to Me. I just want to know what's up and I'd like Your feedback on My latest edits, since My edit count is over 1100 (over 700 since December 1st). Am I moving in the right direction? What do You think? -- Eddie 09:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Gibraltarian sockpuppets

I believe Gib (talk · contribs) belongs in the same category as Gib1, Gib2, Gib3, Gib4, etc., so please block that account as well if you haven't already done so. --TML1988 19:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it. As of yet there is no User:Gib. WP:BEANS! I'll have to ask someone with CheckUser to try to find any more, he's obviously making sleeper accounts to get around sprotection. Dmcdevit·t 19:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest batch

Infidel3 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) Infidel2 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) Infidel1 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) Infidel4 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) Fred Bauder 21:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements== Please don't edit this as everything has been moved to the voteing page and I really don't want the pages to go out of sinc.Geni 21:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding article on the Turks

Hey Dmcdevit, thanks for the help. Tombseye 23:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Budapest edit

Hi Dmcdevit,- I see that you are insisting that the reference to the Holocaust be maintained on the Budapest page. I also see that you are 18 years old from Lafayette CA. I am 77 years old from Budapest. I think your intransigence on this issue is a disservice to the neutral ambition of Wikipedia. - Regards Bloblaw

Thank you for your concern. Blanking large chunks of articles, especially controversial ones like that, is often viewed as Vandalism. If you have a legitimate dispute with the text, the proper way to go about things is to raise that on the talk page, Talk:Budapest, and give your reasons. It is precisely neutrality that we are trying to preserve. Please read WP:NPOV. You should also try to leave edit summaries. Dmcdevit·t 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After an email dialogue with User:Dmcdevit I am informed that the proper protocol for the deletion of text is to establish a discussion of reason.

User:Dmcdevit states that "Blanking large chunks of articles, especially controversial ones like that, is often viewed as Vandalism."and he directed me to read WP:NPOV. Apologies to Wikiworld.

My reason for the exclusion of reference to the Holocaust on a city page about Budapest is that it is "controversial" and belongs elsewhere.
According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." A NEUTRAL point of view would require the excision of the Holocaust reference from this page.
Thanks, I hope you are able to find consensus in that discussion. Dmcdevit·t 04:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why an edit of controversial content (by your own acknowledgement) that clearly violates the NPOV commands of the supreme Wiki authority needs to be vetted with a consensus. The WP:NPOV is an extremely well thought out and expressed statement of integrity and it would be honourable to abide its tenets. Anything less has questionable merit.Bloblaw 10:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repost from talk:Budapest

From the tone and content of your posts it would be safe to assume that you are Zionists. I can feel that you are both a breath away from going ad hominem in your discontent. You refuse to acknowledge the controversy in that there are over a billion muslim people in this world that do not agree with your point of view. Instead you both have decided to heat up and expand the one sided propaganda on the Budapest page. TSK! TSK!

It is my understanding that Wikipedia is attempting to service the whole world in a fair and unbiased praxis by maintaining a NPOV. For Wikipedia to do otherwise will undermine the integrity and credibility of their content in the eyes of the world. Only Wikipedia has anything to lose here.

Why don't you go on about how many Jews were killed by the American bombings of Budapest? To you it's all Nazis and Jews. No one else seems to matter.

A city page about Budapest is not the venue to promote or debate either side of the Holocaust issue.

Propaganda from either side on any issue does not belong on the frontpage of my hometown.

Put your POV here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Hungary

I have no interest in challenging or supporting or debating your Zionist dogma.

But remember there is no safety in unlimited ideological hubris.

As a test case for me, Wikipedia (through agent Dmcdevit) is receiving low marks for maintaining a neutral point of view here. Bloblaw 10:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you are engaging in discussion on the talk page. Please remember to adhere to the principle of civility. Unfortunately, I can't really help you here, since this isn't my area of expertise (and I'm rather busy right now anyway), and my only objective in reverting you was to get you to discuss the matter with those editors that are working on that article. I encourage you to work with them towards consensus. Dmcdevit·t 21:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Blackmail Accusation

Dmcdevit,

Blackmail is a rather serious accusation, and while I don't begrudge your right to list your complaints to the Arbcom, I would for you own sake suggest that you reconsider how you characterize things. I would suggest this for example: The assertion you've joined in is far and away less accurate, and with respect to the assumption of good faith - goes much farther than any of the edits of which you complain. As you suggest, I would not lightly trade the trust, even of a sworn opponent, for any reason. To hold back from joining a mud-sling, by reminding one's opponent that there is adequate mud on both sides to make for a mud-bath is discretion, and about as far from what you called it as language will allow. Live and learn. Benjamin Gatti 06:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm

Could you look at EBaum's World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and YTMND (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for me? They were semi protected due to a really bad vandalism attack a few days ago. The problem is that new users have found a way around sprotect. If you look at the histories, both have multiple new users editing them. I'm wondering if we should try full protection for a bit to let things simmer down. Both articles are messes and they are just becoming moreso. Just wondering what you thought. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And my vote for "Worst Article That Would Never Be Deleted Via an AfD but Should" is List_of_YTMND_fads. I wish we could somehow stop these message boards from hitting us so hard. That one is butt ugly article. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes Camp in Portland

FYI RecentChangesCamp Tedernst | talk 22:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell (talk) (bounties)


Message from Oldwindybear

I appreciated your taking the time to explain. I honestly was trying -- in using legal language (I am a certified paralegal, with a degree in legal studies, and 20 years experience in litigation) -- to make the point that you cannot say untrue things about private people in a public forum. I do though understand your point that such language needs to be discouraged, as it can intimidate -- which was not my intention. Believe me, that was litigatable, and if I had wanted that, I would have done so. I am a disabled vet, who has tried to make positive contributions to this project because I believe in it so greatly. To be accused -- totally without any factual basis -- or soliciting people I did not even know to make nice comments about me HURT. I was actually trying to do Kate a favor, and say that even editors have to be accountable when the things they say are hurtful, and untrue. I appreciate greatly your takign the time to talk to me. I have decided, after considerable thought, to abandon my work on wikipedia. I had 4 college degrees, had actually lived in the middle east, read arabic, greek and latin, and thought I could make a contribution. But it has become so muddled in personal issues, which was NEVER my intention. This will be my last note on wikipedia, and I wanted it to be a positive one, thanking a nice person for a kind note. I hope you understand that in using the language I did, I honestly was trying to warm a nice person that this is the most litigious society in the world, (believe me, I know, I helped file enough lawsuits!) and you have to be careful when you say untrue things about private people in public forums. My intent was good. I regret that I was unable to continue working on wikipedia. I enjoyed my work on it, and I honestly believe most of my contributions were well written, (I am a published poet, with a book being shopped now) and well researched. Your kindness was appreciated, and I hope you understand my explanation for my use of the word. it was honestly meant in kindness -- Lord, I have seen people sue for much less! I would never do so, but many would. Sad but true, we have more lawyers than the remainder of the world combined, and more paralegals than the rest of the world has lawyers! Take care, and I will miss wikipedia. oldwindybear

RE: Notice of new bans

Thanks for the admin action. Will be taking a wikibreak now, but meanwhile, if you can accord the time and effort, please do look through my edit history for more instances of revert warring. It may sound odd, but I am just plain glad the admins have finally acted. I practically found myself disrupting these pages just to make the point that we need help!--Huaiwei 00:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article United Nations Angola Verification Mission II, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

My mistake

Thanks for the notification Dominic. I'd just made some improvements to char siu, but I'd promptly reverted myself when I discovered [4]. I thought I'd be automatically blocked from editing the articles on the restriction list, and I didn't recognise, at the time of the edits to char siu, that there's no such automatic block. I hope you'll take my apology into consideration, but I'll fully respect your ultimate decision. Thanks for your attention. — Instantnood 19:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dominic/Archive9&oldid=1142555412"