User talk:Gaba p/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kpc (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Can you explain why you have described a news update from the online site of Yediot Achronot as a tweet and removed it? Ankh.Morpork 20:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I was just leaving a message at Kevin Gorman's talk page about this. I mistakenly assumed the link directed to a tweet inside a news site. I see now that that few lines are not a tweet but the actual news. Sorry for the confusion. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yediot Achronot publish regular updates which often then form part of their main stories. I would appreciate if you could restore the information you removed. Ankh.Morpork 20:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed that there's two reverts logged in the page. The servers kept giving me an error when I tried to send the edit and must have sent it twice. I've fixed it now (I hope) Sorry again. Regards Gaba p (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
With the constant edit conflicts and server hiccups, editing this article has not been fun. Let's hope the ceasefire holds! Ankh.Morpork 21:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

January 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Self-determination. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 17:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nemo (file manager)

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Nemo (file manager) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable software package

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Nemo (file manager) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nemo (file manager) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemo (file manager) 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 high-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. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Falklands - Ameridian Indians before Europeans?

I have looked at your source for this seen below:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=C6D4151001DCF6AE8937B936C8FDCC62.journals?fromPage=online&aid=5400340

It mentions the date of 1856. Nowhere does it mention that Ameridian Indians could have travelled there in the 16th century, which is what your edit suggests and it is therefore misleading.

The islands are approximately 200 miles from the South American coast and the waters are very rough. There is no evidence that someone could have reached there by canoe in the 1500s or 1600s, and it would have been suicidal to set out to sea in a canoe to a place they didn't even know was there.

If you wish to reference Ameridian Indians being their in the mid-1800s, please make the date clear and insert the text in a place that is chronologically valid rather than making it seem read like Ameridian Indians got there by canoe before European expeditionary vessels.

I intend to re-edit unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talkcontribs) 10:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, let me go by parts:
  1. It is not my source. I did not write that statement, but that's not the issue here in any case.
  2. That journal mentions 1856 as the date of creation of a "mission station" on the Falklands, not related to the date they could have traveled.
  3. That same journal points that the Fuegian Indians of Keppel Islands (the ones brought there in 1856) may have not been the first to reach the islands. The article actually points to evidence pointing that other Indians may have very well reached the islands previously.
  4. Several editors reverted your edit and this should give you a hint that you are doing something not quite right.
If you wish to discuss this further (even though I just explained to you what the source actually says; you might want to take a more careful look at that article) you can do so at the article's talk page. Please read WP:BRD, if you are reverted it is up to you to initiate a discussion. Hope this helped. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate that. Regards. Irondome (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, thanks

Appreciate your sentiment. I have merely tried to add a fresh pair of eyes, and abhor any toxic atmosphere. We should open the windows and let some fresh air in, imo. Im trying to be totally neutral. I think you understand my objections, and I certainly grasp your viewpoint here. I just think concise punchy summaries from all concerned may clarify a hard to read and complex thread. Regards Irondome (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
For your kindly and forebearing tone in a difficult and complex FI discussion. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Im not easily offended Gaba

Especially things like that. CheersIrondome (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Numerous people at the latest WP:AN discussion that you started about WCM's behavior have observed that your actions have been uncivil and contributing significantly to interpersonal problems, regardless of whether you call someone a liar or simply say that he's making untrue statements. I've looked through the links provided there and checked some of your other edits, and I've noticed numerous things that are on the WP:NPA#WHATIS list, especially the "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". This is exacerbated by the recent long ANI thread from which one would expect to take warning against continued personal attacks of this sort. Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Gaba p (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

Editors at that same ANI agreed that if an editor makes a habit of purposely misrepresent other editors comments it should be mentioned. Please check comments by editors ·ʍaunus and Only in death does duty end (this last editor actually checked some of the evidence I presented about Wee misrepresenting my statements)[1] I can back up with evidence absolutely everything I've said about Wee's behaviour, like I did when editor ·ʍaunus commented on the Lopez source issue[2] I'd ask you to please mention here which accusations by me you feel lack evidence and I'll clear them up for you. You'll see that I have absolutely no issues of this kind with other editors except Wee and Kahastok, both blocked not long ago for their disruptive behaviour at Gibraltar. You comment on my accusations of Wee misrepresenting my comments but take no action at Wee's repeated accusations of filibuster, disruptive, sock puppet, etc. (just take a quick look at the article's talk page and you'll see what I mean) On this last accusation (that Wee repeats all the time and is doing right now at ANI) editor Only in death does duty end said: "repeated accusations of someone being a sockpuppet when its been proved to an admins they are not is a personal attack.".[3] Furthermore you blocked me in the middle of an ANI discussion (which started after he decided to circumvent the process of RfC) leaving me no way to defend against Wee's accusations. Once again: you blocked me on grounds of "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". If you would point to which accusations you feel lack evidence I'll gladly provide the relevant links. If you are not convinced by the evidence presented then you can maintain the block for its full extent. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Don't make the ridiculous assumption that administrators cannot read and follow links or dig for evidence. We don't just take people's word for anything - that accusation is pretty uncivil in and of itself (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

The timing in the middle of an ANI is irrelevant to your repeated violations of WP:NPA despite extensive warnings. Providing evidence later is no compensation; you've attacked others, and the fact is that you are not allowed casually to call another editor a liar repeatedly. Finally, note the last part of my message at ANI — I've not looked into allegations against WCM, so this block is not a statement that he's in the right; it's purely a statement that you're in the wrong. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Please note that I never called him or any other editor a "liar" ever. Before the last ANI I had commented about Wee's clear misrepresentation of facts as "lies" about 4 times, these are all presented at that ANI[4]. After that I toned it down to "misrepresent of facts/comments" or "untrue statements" simply because there is no other way of calling it. Have you looked at the diffs presented in that ANI by Wee and me? Can you point to any specific one where I have failed to present evidence (or the evidence presented was insufficient) as to back my claims of him misrepresenting my comments? As I've said, other editors agreed that if an editor makes it a habit to engage in such disruptive behaviour it is not a personal attack to mention it. How would you react to an editor purposely and repeatedly misrepresenting your comments in a discussion? Do you not agree that such behaviour should be brought to the attention of that editor?
It would appear as if you looked at the former ANI and took Wee's word for granted about me "casually calling him a liar". Let me repeat myself: I have not, there's a big difference between calling an editor a "liar" and pointing out that he is simply "lying" (for which I have provided evidence absolutely every time).
You say I'm in the wrong for stating that Wee "made untrue statements" and apparently believe I've not presented evidence for such. How can I defend myself if you don't tell me a specific occasion where I did so? Every time I commented on his misrepresentation of facts I have provided evidence for it. How else could I appeal this block if you don't comment specifically on my supposed violations of WP:NPA? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Nyttend could I ask you to please comment on what did you perceive as "repeated violations of WP:NPA" so as to give me a chance to defend myself? Right now I couldn't care less about this block, it's your notion that it is me who's in the wrong here after it was Wee who acted without consensus and removed a whole section of an article. This just isn't fair at all. How am I supposed to appeal a block if I'm not given the precise reasons for it? I've said it before and I'll say it again: any mention made by me of Wee making "untrue statements" I can 100% back up with evidence. I did so at the last ANI and are prepared to do so again with absolutely any edit you wish. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────BWilkins I never meant implied such a thing. I merely offered my help with anything that might not be clear regarding any mention of a misrepresentation/untrue statement by editor Wee Curry Monster. Anyway, it seems clear there is no point in requesting to be unblocked if I'm not even given the specific reasons that led to it so I can defend myself, it's pointless. Meanwhile Wee gets to use this block at ANI as a reason to throw some more mud at me while I can't answer. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Gaba p (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

Drawing attention of admins: why is my account still blocked? It's been far more than 31 hours and I still can't edit. The message says: You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. See below. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Never mind, the block is apparently over. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)