User talk:Robdurbar/Archive 3

Thank you

Thank you for the geography barnstar, i didn't even know you could get stars!! Thank you. Hopefully the geography section will improve soon. I've got a few articles that I'm doing in my spare time so soon things should look brighter for geography.AlexD 09:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

World Cup

I see from your RFA that you went to the World Cup. Do you happen to have any photos which could be used on 2006 FIFA World Cup? Oldelpaso 15:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Promise

Well you said on my RFA that you wanted a promise so... I Tarret promise to make every attemp to edit wikipedia when ever the time arises. I know that it isn't a long one but I hope it will suffice. Tarret 02:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A smile for you...

Michael has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Michael 09:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: British Isles

Hi there! I genuinely appreciate the invite to collaborate on the British Isles article, but I must admit that I took a look at the article and it's talk page a few weeks ago and I firmly believe I cannot edit the article without my POV leaking through. As such, while I disagree with the Irish inclusion as part of the Isles, I'll leave the discussions and editing to those without a blatant POV. Good luck with the article; it's been on my watchlist for some time. Pre-congratulations on becoming an administrator, by the way! Cheers! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Rob, I have overdone things in the past, thanks for helping me keep the faith! MelForbes 01:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hullo

It's me. Droppin' by to say your RFA is a shoe-in. :) Good luck.--172.193.96.23 03:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

You're now an admin, so have fun with the new tools to help the project out. Be conservative with them, especially at first, and re-read the relevant policy as needed before taking action. As you get the hang of it, jump in and help clear out the backlogs. Again, congrats - Taxman ^Talk 23:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thanks so much for voting, Robdurbar! Thanks so much for your support vote on my request for adminship! With a final vote count of (82/5/0), it succeeded, and I'm now an administrator! I am thrilled with the overwhelming positive support from the community, and sincerely thank you once again for taking your time to voice your opinion. Feel free to contact me with any comments/suggestions in the future! —Mets501 (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab

It is not user BhaiSaab's first 3RR offense either. If you look at his block log, [1] he has been blocked twice for 3RR prior to your well-placed block.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A good admin to contact is User:Blnguyen, he has tried to mediate a dispute between myself and BhaiSaab, which Netaji has happened to join. You may want to inform him of your actions, he is very objective and fair, like you, except much more experienced.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello rob. Since this appears to be a second 3RR offence for BhaiSaab (the first was doubly lodged), and seeing as though Netaji is also on a second offence, I feel it necessary to extend your block to 24 hours also for the purposes of equality. Both of your did some content reverts and then did some tag reverts, so the nature of the edit-warring was the same also. I hope you don't mind. For a history of this conflict, you can see a lot at my talk page - I have two separate archives for these specific topics, and another previous archive for another set of battles. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 01:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

SFD logging

Congrats on your recent Admin Elevation. Don't get giddy with the extra buttons all at once. :) BTW, I notice you logged a day at SFD -- for which thank you, for a while I thought I was the only one operating the brave new system. But when you add a day to the log, do also remember to remove it from the main listings page. Thanks. Alai 15:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

ACI Article

Hello Robdurbar, thank you for your comments regarding the ACI article, clarifying how you're not on some kind of holy crusade against it...that's good to hear!! I appreciate your concerns about the lack of satifactory verification - it is frustrating as a user of the term to have this trouble. However, in fairness, I only came across and adopted the term recently and think that it may be relatively newly coined...hence the limited sources. I fully understand why you don't want it in the BI article intro, given it's limited usage, however you can see my issue that a redirect of a term to another article should only happen if the term is clearly referenced in that article's introduction (where it can easily be found). I would like to reduce the unwieldy Terminology section of the BI article to important points...something I'll look at soon (if WW3 hasn't kicked off there again!). Can you please concede to our request to leave the ACI article be? Btw, congratulations on your Admin elevation - even though we often haven't agreed on detail points in the past, I appreciate your fair and proper way of contributing to the discussion. Best regards, Pconlon 15:49, 16 August 2006

Hi Robdurbar. Thank you for your comments, I've just caught up with them. I do like your Tery Wogen idea, LOL!!! I'm glad you are now aware of the sensitivities around the 'British Isles' term - which myself and my other Irish colleagues are keen for its article to inform readers about. I know what you mean about the Vikings not being included in the Anglo-Celtic Isles term...Dublin itself was founded by them! I thus used the term 'predominant' when referring to population groups. The whole world has become ethnically diverse over the last fifty years in particular and so naming a region after the original and still very much predominant populations is not in any way exclusive. In this case it gets around a much greater and more immediate political issue that knaws at our respective countries' relations. This really is the only viable, collective, alternative term...which is why I personally use it. I understand your concerns about BNP types jumping on it, but you can't worry about what people like that will say or do...sure, wouldn't they just as likely take the expression 'England's fair and pleasant land' and say that therefore England is only for fair people?! I don't want the keep/delete/redirect discussion to become a battle of personal networks and an attritional effort in 'getting the vote out' - this would not be Wikipedia-proper. I most genuinely and openly ask you, please, to put your personal dislike of the term aside, accept its right to exist and support my values by placing your respected voice behind a 'keep' comment. I am aware that this is a lot to ask, but wouldn't ask if I didn't respect your strong sense of fair play. Best regards, Pconlon 00:11, 21 August 2006

Hello!

Hi Robdurbar, just a quick note to say thanks for welcoming me! Sorry that it's taken me a week-and-a-half to get round to replying - I wasn't quite sure where to directly contact you, but I assume this is the place! A couple of questions: what is a stub page and how does it become one? Also, what are you studying at uni? Ojcookies 23:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed something you may or may not be interested in: a user by the IP address 210.54.45.93 has decided that the UK is not a country! Thought I'd let you know... Ojcookies 03:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott

You incorrectly tagged the Netscott report as "no block". He clearly reverted 5 times in 24 hours! How could this possibly not be a block? I've been blocked for making 4 quite different changes in 24 hours! Remember, a revert is "undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part" WP:3RR.Deuterium 02:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It may surprise you that I am aware of this - I took the amazingly advanced step of reading up on policy before trying to implement it. However, can I sugest that if you have a complaint about my actions, taking it directly elsewhere on the administrator's noticeboard, rather than reverting (ironic under the circumstances) my edits. Or alternativedly, questioning me on my justifications, rather than presuming that I don't understand policy?

In my opinion, by commenting out the original research, Nescott had avoided reverting your edits - he had not undone your work or actions, merely sidelined it until he, or the community as a whole, could be convinced that it wasn't original research. By not removing the content, the editor was not 'undoing the actions' of anybody. I did not interpret these as reverts. --Robdurbar 20:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, many others had specifically removed the OR tag because it obviously wasn't OR and Netscott repeatedly put it back in. So, according to you people can revert as much as long as they are adding tags or commenting out material?

Secondly, by referring to the material as original research you are obviously taking a side in this debate, which places your actions and motivations under suspicion.

PS I'm relisting this on the 3RR noticeboard, because it was an obvious violation. Deuterium 23:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Robdurbar, please be aware of this WP:ANI report related to this. Thanks. (→Netscott) 03:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Firstly, belated congrats on becoming an admin.

Secondly, thanks for your moderation regarding recent events - I appreciate the tone of your comments, and the position you're in. --Mal 13:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR of User:BhaiSaab

Greetings again Robdurbar, sorry to bother you but I noticed that you've blocked this user for 3RR. I looked at the report on him and made a comment. I only saw three reverts. I realize that 3RR rule is not an entitlement to 3 reverts and that you may have decided to block due to their edit warring but I just wanted to confirm that with you. Thanks. (→Netscott) 09:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I responded on the report but I'll just add here a thanks for taking my talk into consideration and having a second look. That's appreciated. Cheers. (→Netscott) 10:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You should have Blocked BhaiSaab. He was trying to delete well sourced information from the article. Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

chris moyles

hi do you think the complaints section should eb on the chris moyles show page and not the chris moyles page? just wondered as the complaints all relate to the show?Jocasta shadow 17:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

This edit is wrong, and shows quite clearly why one should not rely on nndb as a source for anything.--Jimbo Wales 21:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Congatulations for getting the sysops. I saw your name in the signpost and remembered you were the one that left me the welcome back in march. Have a nice time with those buttons and what not. See you around the wiki --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

British

Please see Talk:British. Jooler 03:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Mop and bucket..

Firstly, congratulations on your elevation to the mop and bucket brigade: well deserved! As for tidying up, the Perspectives in Ireland section is certainly a tough place to start. Part of the problem may be that this edit reintroduced two references that had been commented out then deleted: the Guardian article which is interesting but doesn't support the claim that was being made, and the publisher's blurb which is wildly unreliable. I wasn't sure if keeping them in a commented out version was intended. Do let me know if you'd like me to delete them again, and I could also perhaps go through that section and strip it down to essentials, though it would not be surprising if that was promptly reverted. All the best, ..dave souza, talk 10:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith action on Anglo-Celtic Isles article

Hi Robdurbar, as you know, I have patiently discussed the Anglo-Celtic Isles article issues for a while now (respecting the open and fair nature of Wikipedia). I only expressed to you my considered reply to your thoughful comments on the article yesterday (see above). Unbelievably, some *** has gone and put a redirect on the article, completely ignoring the continuing discussion! Do you know how to undo this? I'm tiring of playing fair if others are going to misbehave like this. Can you please, ahem, get your mop and bucket out and support us here?! Best regards, Pconlon 15:10, 21 August 2006

The Mildebeast

As an admin based at Durham I should welcome your help in persuading MrTrev not to insist on keeping this section in the Van Mildert College article. I have now reached the end of the sensible number of reverts I can make.

For reference the section is: The Mildebeast. Two large carnivorous fish believed to live in the college lake are said to be responsible for the early disappearance of ducklings. Since the dredging of the lake in summer 2003, confirmed sightings have decreased and it is possible that only one, or neither of these beasts, still survives.

Completely unsourced, it is the clearest breach of WP:V I have seen recently. Even 'legends' can be independently sourced by press reports of 'supposed sightings' etc. (BTW I went to Mildert myself many years ago so I am not without interest in the College}. BlueValour 01:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention. BlueValour 02:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Block on Edipedia

User:Edipedia has been blocked by you for 48 hours for his 4th violation of 3RR. However, he has now three sockpuppets, User:Editor 1, User:Epedia and User:Yepre, two of which have broken the 3RR (Editor 1 is blocked for 3RR, vandalism and personal attacks). I request a reset of Edipedia's block for sockpuppeting to evade the block, and an extend of the block on Edipedia for his 6th violation of 3RR, counting the sockpuppets, if possible (I do not seem to get much attention with my reports, so I thought I would seek help here). For more information and evidence, see here, here and here. Thank you. Aran|heru|nar 02:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Something seriously needs to be done about him. His blatant sockpuppetry and violation of 3RR deserves harsher punishment. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Edipedia is trying to remove the sockpuppeteer tag from his User page. He has removed it three times already[2][3][4], and will most likely keep going until an admin stops him. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Now he even vandalised my user page with a sockpuppeteer tag[5]. Something needs to be done about this guy. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Edipedia

Hi there, I am not a sock puppet. You can't just listen to one side of the story. Please remove those things from my page. Edipedia 21:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

eBaum's World semi-protection

Wow, that was fast. Thanks! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Kyra Phillips

As you've protected this page for edit warring, I invite you to comment on my talk page about my participation. If you feel I was in the wrong, I invite you to be specific so that I can learn what I should have done differently. GRBerry 22:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, and I understand why you are not chosing to check fully. GRBerry 22:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Chick Young

You recently semi-protected this page. I reverted to a much earlier version, but of course I lost the {{sprotect}} tag. I reinserted it, I hope that's OK. Regards, Mr Stephen 22:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Edipedia

Can a block be issued on this user? He just engaged in user page vandalism (not his first time, either) [6], and some moving vandalism [7]. This user in total has broken 3RR 7 times (4 times originally, 2 times by two sockpuppets respectively, and 1 time in user page), edit warred in about five Chinese related articles, put obvious illegitimate warnings in two user talk pages (and re-inserted them after being removed), disrupted the Administrators' noticeboard incident concerning himself, lied to get a page unprotected so he can edit war again, used abusive edit summaries, used personal attacks, blanked his own talk page (including warnings) about 15 times despite notes telling him not to do so, accused others of various political bias despite warnings, used three sockpuppets to evade his block and to continue edit warring, uploaded about 10 images with false licenses, blanked out sockpuppeting note, and lastly, trolled. That adds up to a lot, lot of violations, each of which deserves a block. Since he is definitely not going to change after his 48 hour block on his main account (he continued his vandalism, blanking and trolling), I suggest a longer block of a week on his main account and request more administrator attention to his sockpuppets. Can you help out? Thanks. Aran|heru|nar 04:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

User:24.126.98.71

Thank you for reviewing the case. I understand where you're coming from. I'll keep you posted if the IP actually starts vandalising again. ^_^ Jumping cheese ^Contact 09:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Geography Wikiproject

I thought you might be interested in helping Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geography If so, just add your name to the page. Thanks AlexD 11:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wirral Peninsula

In the History section, you deleted the reference to a football club (with good reason). It seems to be a notable factoid, so I put it back into the Sport section, with some minor expansion. If that bothers you a lot, feel free to modify or delete. Lou Sander 14:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You said:

It just seems a bit of an odd claim. Firstly, the name 'Tranmere' is of Viking origin; it is not 'Viking'. Secondly, has the author of this claim checked the origin of every single place name in the English football league....? --Robdurbar 14:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lou_Sander"

I wondered about some of the Viking stuff, too, but being from another part of the world, I didn't want to meddle with something I didn't know much about. Subsequently I see that someone has questioned the "only" claim on the talk page. I've fixed the article up a bit. The factoid still seems interesting to me, but not worth much more fussing with. Do as you will with it. Lou Sander 14:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - About all we Yanks know of Vikings is that they're a football team from Minnesota. (The one with the funny-shaped ball.)  ;-) Lou Sander 14:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not meant as sarcastic at all, and I'm sorry if the idea ever crossed anyone's mind. Most of the time, we DO cooperate well, and everybody benefits. You and I surely did in the case of football clubs on the Wirral. BTW, I've got a note on the Wirral talk page about some missing facts. Possibly you could supply them. Lou Sander 15:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice start on Geography. Thanks. Please check the figures for the Wirral's size -- it's more than a few meters square. Lou Sander 16:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Edipedia

I'm sorry to tell you that Edipedia and his sockpuppet Yepre has started his edit warring, talk page vandalism, and template vandalism again.

Per your comment on my talk page, I suggest a two-week block on Edipedia for continued edit warring (3 reverts under an hour) despite 5 3RR violations on the account [8] and a further one-week block on Edipedia for template vandalism [9], and a further 4 days block on Edipedia for his 12th blanking of his talk page, including warnings [10], which amounts to 25 days. As Yepre being a sockpuppet cannot be "proven" (though it is obvious, given that they made the exactly same edit, used the exactly same edit summaries, and Yepre also edited HongQiGong's talk page 3 times), I suggest a temporary 4 days block for talk page vandalism [11] [12] [13] [14], 4 days for removal of sockpuppet tag [15] [16], 2 days for second violation of 3RR [17], which amounts to 10 days. Agreed? Aran|heru|nar 04:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I also wish to request a full protection on the article Chinese people, which Edipedia edit wars in, if possible. Aran|heru|nar 04:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Messing up pages

Thanks for your speedy reponse. I agree it's not quite vandalism I couldn't think of the correct term. Messing pages up seems good. What alternative routes could I use?(Halbared 08:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

thanks for that:o)(Halbared 08:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

Another sock of Edipedia

Another sock of Edipedia has just been discovered! Well, are you going to do something? Aran|heru|nar 14:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think User:Robdurbar is specifically responsible for taking care of sockpuppet abuses. We should just report User:Edipedia on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser after Labour Day. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi, Rob. Thank you for welcoming me. First, I'm still a newcomer in Wikipedia and I'm sorry for my poor English.

I still do not understand about what is talk page and how I have to put my sign. I've already put four tildes above this message. I hope it works.

Hope everyone help me to become Wikipedians. --Yves Revi 19:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done! I've just known something useful for me. Thank you, Rob! I'm learning the tutorial now. Hope I'll successful. Keep in touch. (By the way, I've moved my signature from the beginning to the end of my message. Cheers!) --Yves Revi 19:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin

Can you please reconsider protection of this page? I don't want to wheel-war, but it's on the mainpage, and this are the events that help form the image of Wikipedia. Yanksox 18:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I do believe there are rae circumstances in which protection is necessary from the mainpage. This is one of those. I'm going to sit on it, if we all survive this thing, it will be amazing. Godspeed, Yanksox 18:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not more protection policy but an idea that alot of admins abide by. Yanksox 18:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, I've been watching this page, and I've blocked the culprit. Need to keep an eye on this, keep in mind, people do the same thing to the day's featured article. I've dropped all my normal tasks just for this little ordeal. Yanksox 18:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about time, we also have an issue regarding the stingray picture and a debate over sobriquet and nickname. I think we should wait till this whole thing dies down somewhat. Yanksox 19:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

revert of vandalism at Origins of baseball

Robdurbar, Thanks for your welcome five weeks ago. Today I reverted vandalism at Origins of baseball, a first for me. When you get a chance please visit and check the history.

• It seems that I did it correctly except for one close parenthesis in the edit summary, which doesn't matter. (It was not fun to compose the editor summary.)
• It appears that the vandal (IP address) has not edited Wikipedia in any other way or am I missing something? If this is the only edit, then that's all to be done, I think. Right? --P64 19:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Map of Morocco

Hi Rob. The map issue is back again. Could you please participate at the voting? Cheers. -- Szvest 11:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Subject of an RfC

With regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/El_Gringo, I have coutersigned and I have added a link to the WP:PAIN report in evidence of attempted resolution.

Kindest Regards, Crimsone 18:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for opinion

Hi Robdurbar. I wonder if you might do me a little favour and navigate to my talk. I've been giving basic WP:PAIN responses today (nobody else has been doing so for a while, so I figured it useful and perhaps prudent). As a result of one report, I gave an npa2 to a user, who then complained on my talk and asked that I investigate a dispute I responded to the complaint and request, but what I said obviously wasn't much appreciated! LOL. It's not a very long passage, and I would appreciate your opinion of what I've said if you could spare the time (blunt as you like - I can take criticism if there is any:) ). Kindest regards,

If you do look, feel free to respond here if you feel you might end up involved in something :) --Crimsone 23:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Robdurbar. Your help/opinion was/is very much appreciated. My apologies for the bad timing, and have a good night :) --Crimsone 23:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No hurry, but when everybody's had a chance to look into this I would appreciate having the chance to discuss amongst us the possibility of having the npa2 reversed as I don't believe that I have engaged in a personal attack. WP:PA states Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom. I have not made any such statement repeatedly, I'm reasonably certain I can convince you and Crimsone that I have not been acting in bad faith, and given the history leading up to the alleged PA I don't believe that my comment will be seen to have risen to the level of having had sufficient venom to constitute a PA. On the other hand, I'm convinced that after reading some of the relevant commentary you will come to the conclusion that lordkazan did indeed violate WP:PA on several occasions. I appreciate that Crimsone is doing her best to do a good job in good faith, that she is indeed quite busy (as are most of us, I imagine) and that given the isolated material she had to work with, her time constraint, and her understanding of the limits of her responsibilities that she came to a reasonable preliminary conclusion. However, I also believe that upon reflection of the totality of the situation and a close reading of the PA policy you will both come to see that I did not engage in any personal attack and that the warning should be reversed. Thanks; I look forward to your next message. Dasondas 01:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No comment whatsoever about the religious slurs directed at me and the idle threats made against me on my talk page? Or the personal attack made against me at Talk:Circumcision? Nice work. Furhtermore, repeated blanket reversions of another editors work is indeed vandalism. Just exactly what did your review entail, anyhow? You told me you'd be looking into this, but either you have a pretty strong bias, or you didn`t take much time to look at the totality of this situation. I would like to enter into a formal dispute resoltion process to seek to have the npa2 of Crimsone officially removed; how do I do that? Dasondas 11:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that you haven't yet removed lordkazan's slur against me from the talk:cirumcision page. Did you not see it there? If not, why not? If so, why is it still there for everybody to see? Dasondas 11:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the slur, I was more concerned with your complaint and the ongoing edit war. It is possible that I missed it. Given the truly incredible amount of time I have given to the dispute and a possible solution, if you could please provide a diff that shows the slur, I would be more than happy to deal with it in the name of fairness.

In the mean time, please see here for my reply and suggested solution to this dispute. --Crimsone 18:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For your efforts to resolve the conflict between Dasondas and Lordkazan. With any luck it'll be beneficial. Jakew 09:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Assume good Faith

When one has already demonstrated that they are not going to act in good faith by calling people who oppose them "Bigots" and "sympathizers of fringe groups" then assuming they are acting in good faith is ludacris - they have already demonstrated they are not. We shouldn't be forced to act like naive children and assume something we know to be untrue. Lordkazan 14:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/El Gringo

Rob, sorry if you have taken umbrage at my little comment, I didn't realize at the time that you had instigated the complaint. And my comment was very general! But I do see Mal,Setanta as a disruptive influence on various talk pages in the past and it was him that i had mainly in mind + one other editor. I have been racially attacked 3 times on the BI page too, and will I get upset, no. I see ElGringo's remarks as more in the repoiste style and not in any extended troll. Really, I do not believe that ElGringo really means any insult, but some folks take insult very easily. He is very spirited in his WP style, and who are we, or you(PL) to crush that spirit. MelForbes 23:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Rob, i've moved some of your comments on the RfC to the talk page, it looked to me as if the formatting had gotten mucked-up some.EricR 23:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Isladelsol.jpg

What do you mean 'not fair use'? I took the picture myself. Im trying to contribute to wikipedia and make it more colourful, if I did something wrong at least let me know on my talk page so that I can correct the problem.--Gregorof 17:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries, sorry if I sounded a little harsh earlier I was just confused. Do I have to tag it with {{GFDL-self}} though? What I am getting at is that I would prefer not to completely release it to the public domain, but instead just for 'non-commercial and educational' means. However if this is not possible, I am defintely willing to completely release it. Also, if it is not inconvenient, could you please restore the images Pakbeng.jpg for the article Pakbeng and Ban_Houayxay.jpg for the Ban Houayxay article, under the neccesary licenses. (Did it myself) Thanks. --Gregorof 22:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Two points

First, lordkazan's legal threat against me was a violation not only of WP:NPA but WP:NLT as well. Will you please explain to me on my talkpage and as soon as possible why you made light of this instead of pursuing it as the serious issue you seem to believe other alleged WP:NPA violations to be? IMO you are not giving the appearance of unbiasedness. Second, in the future please refrain from making any inferences or speculations as to my religious convictions or lack thereof. What was your basis for stating that I have "strongly-held" religious beliefs, or any religious beliefs for that matter? Give me one reason why I shouldn`t consider this behavior a personal attack in violation of WP:NPA? Surely if you made the same charge against user:lordkazan he would consider it a serious slur. Why shouldn`t I? Have I made a reference to my religious convictions on Wikipedia at any time? Dasondas 00:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I had already dealt with both issues Dasondas, with the same level of severity that I dealt with issues against yourself. the legal threat, as stated, was obviously not a statement of "I'm about to take legal action", but instead qualified under WP:NPA as a personal attack, as per the example given on the policy page.

With reference to religion, suggesting that somebody holds religious believes doesn't really constitute a slur in any given policy, and was quite clearly not intended to infer any negative connotation. It was simply a means of stating that opposing viewpoints can hopefully be set aside in order for two people to come together and edit an article together and in good faith. --Crimsone 00:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

First, I don`t understand why Robdurbar can`t field these questions himself. Is he ashamed of his conduct? Second, intent does not qualify or disqualify a comment from being a personal attack. Robdurbar`s comment was ignorant and offensive and instead of hiding in silence he should step up and apologize for the offense. If he had no intent to offend, that`s his job to say so and nobody elses. Dasondas 04:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

He is capable, yes - he just hasn't been on. To be honest, saying you had religious views is not a personal attack as it in no way damages you as a person. A mistake in terms of accuracy it may have been, but having religious views is not really anything to be ashamed of - most people in this world have them. There's really nothing to apologise for, strictly speaking, though when he sees this section next, he may well opt to apologise for the offence that the remarks apparently caused you, depending on how he feels about it. In the mean time, thre is a reply to yourself on my talk page :) Crimsone 04:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Crimsone, I just saw this now. I agree that in the overwhelming majority of situtations the suggestion that someone held religious views would not be considered a slur, and I personally don`t believe that, generally speaking, people should be ashamed of them. On the other hand you, Robdurbar, and I have recently been dealing quite closely with somebody who would clearly take great offense at being accused of holding religious views, so I believe that my point was well taken here. The offense was not due to the content of the sentiment, but in the assumption that based upon the opinions I have been articulating wrt circumcision and religious intolerance that I myself must therefore have some type of identifiable religious predilection. I may have, I may not, but the inference shouldn`t have been made based upon the opinions I have expressed to date. Robdurbar has indeed apologized, for which I respect him and have thanked him. Dasondas 14:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Zzuuzz's RfA thanks

Hi Robdurbar. I have added the RfA to the pile, and await the judgment of the community. May I take this opportunity to thank you once again for the nom. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

thank you

I appreciated that Dasondas 11:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

England

Hi. I made some changes to the England article over the weekend. As we conversed briefly on the discussion page, I'd thought I'd let you know. Hope the changes are well recieved. 86.133.72.79 23:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Demonstrable truth does not constitute a personal attack

Demonstrable truth (i have the diffs of him doing it) does not constitute a personal attack. He committed personal attacks against me, I cited those as the reason I won't even read his comments anymore. That doesn't constitute a personal attack since I can, indeed, demonstrate with wikipedia DIFFs that he did engage in egregious personal attacks against me. Lordkazan 16:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You think they should be kept to oneself, I disagree. I can show that my statement of his actions is factual. If he were to simply to apologize to me then I would remove it as soon as I saw his apology. He has however stated that he has no intention of apologizing to me. (see my talk page for more) Lordkazan 18:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey bro, I know you're trying to do what you think is best for wikipedia - we just happen to have a different opinion on this one thing. Atleast we can both stay civil with each other, even though we're both just running up against brick walls. You and Crimsone have both been working hard to try to resolve this conflict. As far as I'm concerned - it's over, everyone lost. Dasondas couldn't simply accept that I have a different opinion and apologize. I cannot reach Dasondas with any form of compromise between his religion and human rights. You and Crimsone cannot get Dasondas and I to get along. So I tried to extract myself from the situation and merely say "I won't talk to him - here's why. End of Story". I don't consider User:Avraham impartial on the subject, so I respond to his statements much less readily. Lordkazan 19:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is going to wind up in arbitration if you guys don´t take control

Robdurbar, I am sick and tired of the constant barrage. I haven´t had a word to say for two days other than giving an apology to Crimsone (for which I still haven´t seen the npa2 advisory removed from my talk page as she said would occur)and the attacks go on and on and on. My Wiki reputation has been damaged, and at this point I have no qualms about going to arbitration to restore it; it´s something I should probably do sooner rather than later. I am amazed that at least four administrators have been engaged in this, and the problem just keeps getting worse. You all (involved admins) simply have to apply the policies of Wikipedia uniformly or the integrity of the entire system will be corrupted. You wouldn´t tolerate this for two seconds if it was happening to somebody you knew, so the appearance of bias is unavoidable. Stop trying to count the number of angels on the head of the Wiki policy pin, and just apply the policy already. The user who you have been busy entertaining at my expense has referred to me as a "criminal" on several occasions, "dishonest" on at least two, refers repeatedly to my religious beliefs which I have never discussed so he can´t possibly know what he´s saying, vilely debases those religious beliefs that he thinks I do hold, has threatened me with legal action, and not only does he not retract the untrue statements he has been making about me -- he continues to repeat them in your face. At no point have I ever referred to him as an anti-Semite or Islamophobe, and I want those allegations removed from all Wiki locations IMMEDIATELY, as in RIGHT NOW THIS VERY MINUTE. Furthermore you or one of the other involved admins needs to take immediate (as in right now this very minute) action against the numerous violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIV strong enough so that they stop. My insistence upon this is now documented on several admin talk pages, and it wouldn´t look good at ArbCom that nothing was done about this or any of the other violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIV which the several of you have not only witnessed but actually seem to be encouraging (not deliberately, obviously) by continuing to have a toothless dialogue with somebody who to date has not shown the least interest in voluntarily bringing his behavior into compliance with policy and seems to enjoy spitting your admonitions back in your face. And I am not the first one with whom he has had this problem, and I don´t think I´m the only one who is fed-up to the point of seeking arbitration. Enough is enough, please stop humoring this guy and get something done already. Thanks. Dasondas 20:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Go raibh maith agat!

File:Ireland 37 bg 061402.jpg

Hi there, Rob!

Thank you so much for supporting my RfA! It ended up passing and I'm rather humbled by the support (and a bit surprised that it was snowballed a day early!). Please let me know if I can help you out and I welcome any comments, questions, or advice you wish to share.

Sláinte!

hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 05:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

SpinyNorman's block

Thought you might want to know, CheckUser confirms that SpinyNorman has been avoiding your block using the sockpuppet User:MesaBoogie. [18] Jayjg ^(talk) 14:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergey Ignatenko

I saw you closed this. Please don't forget to include the header with the article title. In other words, but the closure tags on the far top and bottom of the discussion page, not leaving anything out. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)