DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between February 28th and March 9th.
- 1 Esperanza elections
- 2 Re: Format on my RfA
- 3 Congratulations
- 4 block conflicts
- 5 AUCAMAN
- 6 You're welcome
- 7 Thanks!
- 8 Stress
- 9 Maktub
- 10 Vandalism
- 11 Thanks
- 12 I need advice
- 13 NOTICE-please~~!
- 14 Advice
- 15 Thank you!
- 16 Well?
- 17 My RfA
- 18 closing a debate
- 19 daredevil
- 20 Daredevil mediation case
- 21 =Additonal exchange
- 22 Reply
- 23 Thank you!
- 24 Award
- 25 Re: UPA
- 26 Congrats!
- 27 Fun with templates
- 28 Persian people
- 29 IP block collateral damage
- 30 McDonald's reverts and User:CriticOfthearts
- 31 class listings at schools
- 32 Beware of Tobias Schmidbauer
- 33 Thanks
Re: Format on my RfA
Thanks for cleaning that up for me. Apparantly, I wasn't the only one who had forgotten that formatting tip (as the person I was responding to forgot as well!). Thanks again! --ZsinjTalk 16:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Though, personally, I think blocks should be cumulative, i.e. admin A blocks for one day, admin B blocks for 2 days, vandal serves a 3 day block... like multiple prison sentences, really... — Mar. 1, '06 [10:55] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Please take a look at talk:Persians, AUCAMAN's concerns have been discussed by many many users again and again, the majority disagree with his ideas but he's not even involved in the discussion any more 'cause his argument has been countered by sources after sources. so now he's trying to impose his POV by abusing the dispute tag function! improper use of dispute tag when there is a consensus on talk by most users, is against Wiki rules. --18.104.22.168 11:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but you are taking sides here. If you are going to protect the page which also mentions disputes in its protect tag description then why leave AUCAMAN's dispute tag about "neutrality and factual accuracy" of the whole article up there as well? Did you see talk:Persians? AUCAMAN's dispute was originally about a section of the article and the majority of users there STRONGLY DISAGREED with AUCAMAN and he was presented with countless authoritative sources which all countered his theory which is solely based on his personal assumption, but he still insisted on pushing his POV by re-editing the article despite a majority consensus on the issue and the fact that his concerns had all been addressed again and again, and when he was confronted by the users there, he just put a dispute tag on the whole article without any new explanation on talk first. Improper use of dispute tag is against wikipedia rules. He's simply trying to impose his POV by abusing the dispute tag function. I really don't see why you are endorsing such behavior. Can you please abide by the majority's consensus on talk:Persians and remove the dispute tag. The protect tag which has dispute description will still be there and AUCAMAN can present his side of argument on talk and explain on what bases he's still insisting on editing the article, but that's not what he really wants. He simply wanted to dis-form the article and he's got his way so far. --22.214.171.124 12:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Congratulations on being elected into the Advisory Committee! :) Cheers, Sango123 (e) 20:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, i just wanted to thank you for helping me out and watching the Maktub page. I didnt have much time in January and February to work on Wiki, so thanks for catching the vandalism and reverting the edits. Much appriciated, keep up the good work!--Geppy 23:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I apologise for the vandalism from this IP. It is a school computer (Or computers? I don't understand IPs), and people often act the arse, vandalising and that. Please block on sight of vandalism from this IP but make it short in time, as there are proper wikipedians (including myself) who make positive contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs)
Thanks, but it looks like my efforts were in vain. I've tried very hard to work out a compromise between the two groups, but Aucaman has refused to do this. It's very hard, what would you do in a situation like this? --Khoikhoi 15:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for your advice. --Khoikhoi 00:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I need advice
Are you still around? Gorkhali 22:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Please take notice of Wikipedia:Esperanza/Charter Amendments At approx. 845 EST (one hour) I will place it before the entire Esperanza Community for debate. I am informing all Leadership members. --WikieZach| talk 00:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I am fairly new to Wikipedia, haven't had much of chance to go through everything, however I try. I was bullied in the Rajput article so I left, but I would always pop back to see what was up. The "Hindu" side was fairly rude but the "Pakistani" side was equally rude, the difference between the two? The Hindu side cited valid sources, while the Pakistani side cited none (what I mean to say is that they didn't even cite a source and muscled their POVs). To further create a mess the admin involved got pretty nasty and made some racist statements which ended up making my blood boil. The admin gave the Pakistani side a free hand and was really sympathetic towards them.
The Hindu side ended up getting banned in an arbitration (spelling? Sorry its 4 am right now, couldn't go to sleep) and guess what, I spoke up for what I thought was justice and got banned too and categorised as "The Hindu only side". It was as if no one bothered to read my evidence or anything, just threw me into the group. I was honestly very upset.
What kills me is that one of the Admin's friends named Zora said she was using a book to better grasp an understanding of the topic (before that they were all arguing with their POVs without any knowledge on the topic, that to me is irresponsible), however this is the best part, the book is by M Kasturi, a professor of South Asian Studies at the University of Toronto, no one bothered to read my profile that Dr' Joseph T. O'Connell, the famous Harvard Hindu scholar (primarily to do with Bengal) is Prof. Emeritus of the same department and University and is my mentor in that field. I am still very much in touch with him and his family.
The whole experience was like a slap in the face. I feel as if in Wikipedia, its not about accuracy its about who has more friends and muscle. I read your profile and was really impressed by your "Stars" but more so by the name you chose for yourself, so I took the time to write to you. Is there any way I can get unbanned form working on Rajput?
I am sorry if I troubled you. Tahnk you for reading my letter and responding.
Dr. ChauhanGorkhali 09:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi KnowledgeOfSelf/Archive10, thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota ~ ° 21:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you interested in or know anyone who is interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs? Spawn Man 08:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC). BTW, I love your cat, send my regards to him/her. I have a cat that looks fluffy, but is actually fat. :)
closing a debate
to close a debate would require that there was one in the first place, I'm sure that you will agree that there was a/ inadequate (ie nil) discussion prior to afd/vfd and b/ the resulting teensy discussion did not have anything that could realistically be termed a debate, in a knowledge society. I learnt what i needed from the train of interactions to improve my strategies here and thats the main thing. my eyes are wide open to what its all about now, I have dug deep and wide, and understand so much more. I came here with positivity, but the vulnerabilities are quite disturbing, in fact i am highly cynical now. Its kinda like an msn with chat rooms (talk) about stuff people are interested in, and can bitch on endlessly as to how unecessary bits are and how it should be cut and sliced and diced.... I'm taking more pics than ever, and giving them as usual, and really nothing much else has changed. moza 14:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey KOS, yeah things are going fine. Thanks for your help. GodzillaWax 14:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Daredevil mediation case
Thanks again for all your help. I'm afraid User:GodzillaWax is adding a late caveat. Here, verbatim so there's no misunderstanding, is today's exchange
One small thing about our agreement not to touch each others sections: some of the info in Publication History is better suited to Character History. If I move something you disagree with, let me know. GodzillaWax 10:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Response to Caveat
I think moving something without discussing it with other Wikiepdians goes against the idea. One person may think something belongs in Publication History and another person may not -- and vice versa. If something is egregiously out of place, others will likely notice it. — Tenebrae 17:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Im not sure why this isnt something Tenebrae considered - its been discussed for a long time now on the DD discussion page that Pub History is going to be broken into Pub History and Character History. That kind of necessitates that some things from Pub History move. GodzillaWax 17:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Response to your response
I think a pretty easy rule is that if its a plot point from the comic, its a part of the Character History. If its got something to do with creators or larger context of the comic, its Publication History. For instance, most of what is talked about in the Bendis/Maleev section is just a recounting of the plot from their arcs. Those are the kind of things I envision streamlining and moving to Character history (without actually mentioning Bendis/Maleev, since that would break the fourth wall, as it were). For your part, Publication History could then discuss Bendis and Maleev and who they were etc etc. GodzillaWax 17:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
My Post on KOS's talk page
Im not sure why this isnt something Tenebrae considered - its been discussed for a long time now on the DD discussion page that Pub History is going to be broken into Pub History and Character History. That kind of necessitates that some things from Pub History move. GodzillaWax 17:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm saying let other editors do what they feel is necessary. WE don't have to go into sections that we've agreed through mediation not to. — Tenebrae
Congrats on winning the Esperanza Elections! Sorry I didn't vote...somehow I didn't know it was going on (probably read a E-spam too fast). Thanks for asking about my CLEPs...I actually didn't pass my last one. :( That's not the motivating me to re-think my educational goals, but I am nonetheless, because my violin teacher has been talking to me about conservatories and music schools, and now I feel back to square one about that (where before I thought I had my plans all laid out). Ah, well...that's very RL-ish, and I don't mean to get that way in every single conversation I have with a wikipedian. Sorry! :D Anyway...obviously, you can tell I've not been very active on the Wiki...which has been great for my practice! Hope everything is still going well with you (RL and cyberspace)?--ViolinGirl♪ 01:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the link!! Llamadog903 03:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, sorry about nominating user pages. In my defence, Ian13 and Terence Ong did it too. I don't think the UPA page specifies this, the only restriction there is that judges cannot have pages nominated, and must forfeit one position or the other.
Secondly, sorry about nofifying nominees. I had the message on my user talk page from when my user page was nominated and put it on nominated users' talk pages, believing it to be my responsibility. Apologies.
Thirdly, I'll get judging.
I know I'm a bit late, but just wanted to congratulate you for being elected to the Esperanza AC. You'd better do a good job, alright?
I also wanted to tell you my Internet access will be somewhat patchy this week, so if you need anything consider it will take me some time to get back to you. Take care! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Congratulations! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Fun with templates
Thanks for unprotecting the page. No one's reverted yet, but I'll keep an eye on the page. Anyways, thanks again. --Khoikhoi 01:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
IP block collateral damage
User:188.8.131.52 is a massively shared proxy for Travis Air Force Base - as I just discovered when wikien-l-owner got an email asking about the block :-) I've unblocked it as collateral damage and explained that short blocks may still be needed, but it shouldn't be blocked long-term - David Gerard 11:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
McDonald's reverts and User:CriticOfthearts
I noticed you reverted some vandalism on the McDonald's article back to the previous version by User:CriticOfthearts. Please have a look at that user's edit history, specifically his edit to the McDonald's article, where he removed the entire section of "Criticisms" under the reasoning "removed highly libellous statements". I would revert back to the version before that but I see there have been several edits since then and I would prefer it if a more experienced editor would take on the task. Thanks for your help! --CrypticBacon 14:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
class listings at schools
Hi Steve, I wanted to run this past you. At Rancho San Joaquin Middle School I deleted a list of classes that school offers on the basis that information was non-encyclopedic. Was this correct? (An anon questioned my actions and I explained that it fell under WP:NOT, and I then added a link to the school's website.) Venado Middle School also lists classes and I am tempted to delete them as well, but I wanted to get another's opinion first. Thanks. --Fang Aili 15:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Beware of Tobias Schmidbauer
Tobis Schmidbauer also vandalizes the German wikipedia; e.g. the article on Guantanamo-Bay and organic farming. In the article on Guantanamo-Bay he changed a headline without giving a reason over a time of at least two months. He is the only user in the discussion forum on Guantanamo-Bay who believes that his weird behavior is correct. He is a 19-year old student who claims on his German wikipedia site that he is Donald Duck. When a vandalism notice was issued, he suggested two articles of this person for deletion as a revenge within half an hour after he found the notice. When the author of the two articles (a renowned scientist) opened the discussion on the deletion he found at this time only a masturbation photo which appeared to him to be posted by Schmidbauer (in fact the photo is from an anonymous IP)!!! He is also calling this person a revisionist and other insults. Two German admins endorsed this behavior, they didn't delete these insults, instead they blocked the author who just tried to keep an article free of vandalism and whro removed Schmidbauer's nonsense and insults.