User talk:Timberframe

"Vandalism" or "A safe playground for a deranged mind"

The main purpose of this page, it appears, is to provide a safe playground for a compulsive vandal. He's been blocked numerous times but shows contempt for his peers by immediately and incessantly coming back with new user names or dynamic IPs. Ventures such as wiki are always at risk of such unwanted attention. Wiki has some words of comfort for such people at WP:GRIEF, which charts the stages through which such people must inevitably pass. I offer my talk page as a place of safety in which to play out the final stages. I hope my liberal use of the "single source" tags and on one occasion the "self-published sources" tag serve as anchors on reality for a mind which is clearly adrift.

Rant here in safety

File:Puppets template.svg

You have been accused of sock puppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Timber frame for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Timber frame (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also check out. 82.5.97.151 and 82.153.175.147 and 82.18.46.106 and 82.18.46.106 and 82.5.92.156 and 82.5.102.91 which are an open proxy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.97.94.178 (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User Timber frame has no history and made reference to an account that has been reported as being fraudulently recorded using another persons name with the sole purpose of vandalizing Wikipedia. The user page was supposed to have been removed along with any comments associated with this user. It is suspected that the user Timber frame is the same person responsible for registering the fraudulent account a IP check will confirm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=20&target=Timberframe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.243.156.214 (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"You have been accused of sock puppetry. " - where? "Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Timber frame for evidence" - I did, the page doesn't exist. Why are you signing with my user name? Because the whole of the first paragraph is a cut & paste of the valid warning I posted on your talk page. Please follow the advice and find out how to do this properly. "User Timber frame has no history " - except since last September, but you can discount that because that was questioning your actions. "vandalizing" - evidence? "Richard and Terry" - never heard of them. Why not ask for an IP check first before making silly accusations? OK, on wider research on the Internet, Terry is some arch-nemesis of yours. Sorry, he's not me and I'm not him. I can see he would have a bone or two to pick with you, but that's his issue, not mine. Mine is quite simply that while I appreciate you expertise and insight into Ukrainian politics and election procedures, you appear to have adopted a number of guises, some of them since you were blocked as UkraineToday. As for Richard - not him either.

Rather than playing tit-for-tat wordgames here, why not say something in your defence on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets; if I'm wrong and you can prove it I'll be please to apologise. 82.153.175.147 (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

82.153.175.147 is a sockpupert/Open Proxy IP address used by Timberframe it does not comply with Wikipedia rules on IP's

assume good faith —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectAnalysis (talk • contribs) 19:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WARNING You are about to breach the 3RR rule. The information on the constitutional crisis is historical fact. The comments are a summary only. If it is to be removed the it should be doe so i consultation with unbiased editors. Similar information on the political crisis should eb removed as it is clearly slanted in one direction and not of enclyclopedia content.

Timberframe is part of a small group of activists who are supporters of the Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko. He is also the moderator of http:\\for-ua.com, elected i a corrupt election where they baed their opposition from participating in the ballot until after the ballot closed. Peter and the other moderators have banned every person who does not hold or support their political point of view,. Angela, Anita, Green Tea, Free Speech. Klapa just to name a few. He also made false unsupported claims that Ukraine was engaged in the deliberate mass murder and execution of unwanted children and that Ukrainian Orphanages were "Death Camps for Children". He claimed he had evidence to back up his specious claims but when challenged he and others could not produce the evidence they said they had. His actions and irresposible unsupported claims have seriously undermined Ukraine's welfare agencies. Not one international welfare agency supported his claims of mass murder of children.

Peter continues to make false allegations against and stalks anyone that does not support his political point of view. The removal of factual information from wikipedia articles brings wikipedia into disrepute and leaves it open to the allegation of extreame bias.

http://p-ced.blogspot.com

Review of both users Belgorod and Timberfame's contributions are a clear indictation of their real stated purpose and interests beig harrassment arising from their political activities and bias point of view. Their ongoing misuse of wikidepia as part of their personal smear campaign only brings wikipedia into distrepute

Timberframe (IP 82.153.175.147) in association with a group of individuals is embarked on a campaign of harassment and validation which included the registration of an account by Richard usaig te personal name of the victim. Using this fraudulent account Richard proceeded to vandalize wikipedia pages associated with the Ukrainian Parliamentary election in order to prevent factual information related to the constitutional Court challenge and actions of the President Viktor Yushchenko's interference in the independence and operation of Ukraine's Constitutional Court from being published. The vandalism of wikipedia articles results in an edit war and the victim of Timberframe's harassment was wrongfully blamed and subsequently banned by a sympathetic administrator working in close association with those who initiated the fraudulent attack using the fake id of their victim. Investigation and review has revealed that those involved are associated with the for-ua.com political publication and the maidanua.com.ua web sites. review of Timberframe's contributions indicates that his main purpose in registration was to stalk and harass his victim. Timberframe is the moderator on the for-ua.com political forum where he ad his associated moderators have banned every person who is opposed to their political point of view. The user Richard who has bee indentified as the person who registered the fraudulent account is also a participant on this forum and he encouraged others including Timberframe to register a account and trash the wikipedia pages. This is the same modus operandi that this group has applied on a number of other web sites. Timberframe's IP address (82.153.175.147) is an open proxy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.243.157.214 (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

To user Belgorod

Hi! Your attempts to clean up my page are probably well meant and I appreciate it. However, it would help a current sockpuppet case if you left the evidence as it stands. Once the case is closed I'll clean up here myself. Thanks.

Addition

I appended another IP to your sockpupet report here. Jd2718 (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oversight

You may want to ask for Wikipedia:Oversight for some of those edits. I already did on the 4th or 5th sockpuppet. Otherwise, that stuff stays in the edit history. (on the other hand, you may not care. I leave that to you). Jd2718 (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, even. Go to WP:RFO (request for oversight) and click the request button. You'll be e-mailing them, and they'll take it from there. Jd2718 (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

JLR/Tata

The sale is agreed, but has not completed. Ford remains the owner of Jaguar/Land Rover until the sale is completed. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Afraid I don't know the date, but the reports cited in the articles say the sale is due to be completed at end of Q2. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sale of JLR from Ford to Tata is now complete (Tata is now parent company) - 2nd June 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.152.13 (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Land Rover / Jaguar

I read your take on the LR discussion page but I'm not quite sure what you meant. You seem to be implying that the term British should not be in the article, yet you debated favourably on its British heritance on the same discussion page. Care to clarify? -Yosh 17:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosh (talk • contribs)

Far from it. The use of "British" to describe the company was debated and consensus was that there isn't a single way to define a company's nationality, and in fact it's meaningless to do so. That same debate also recognised that marques can be, and often are, associated in the public mind with specific countries (even when this is the result of advertising rather than bearing any relation to where production takes place). LR is a case in point - for me it is an icon of British manufacturing - and the article clearly portrays the history, development and operation of LR, both as a marque and as a company, all taking place in Britain. I think adequate weight is given to the Britishness of the LR marque, and we really don't need to go over the ground of the debate about whether LR as a company is British unless theer's something new to be added to the existing debate. -- Timberframe (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Moves

You are moving a vast number of articles without discussion. Please stop.-- Ѕandahl ♥ 22:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. These pages moves are not constructive. Please stop. Mjr162006 (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:bot message

Hello, Timberframe. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Tinu Cherian - 10:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Must see!

This is a must see for you [1] :), Paka! -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thanks very much for your help editing the table on the Camel Trophy Page. It was much appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbencooper (talk • contribs) 17:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the comments & for removing the templates on North Stradbroke Island Historical Museum. Semper Fi, FieldMarine (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Party 'positions'

Rationale is simple: a few days ago I updated the template [2] concerned so that there is no such label as 'position' any more. My changes were not reverted, so I hoped others who have the pages in their watchlist did not object.
Today, I started removing the commentaries that were still there in the article text but had become invisible so to say, as I had changed the template before. It may indeed seem like a rogue move, but I really found such a thing in the template/infobox totally unsuitable and a possible means for POV pushing. Ideology is already there and should reflect both theoretical and actual political positions of a party. See, e.g. this. --Miacek (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Willoughby Sharp

He died today. Check out this message I received:

Pamela sends word that the hospice called her early this morning to say that Willoughby died at 4:45 am New York Time. Come to Sharpville for further information.

Visit Sharpville at: http://sharpville.ning.com Valueyou (talk)

also see: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/finch/finch12-18-08.asp Valueyou (talk)

+

Willoughby Sharp, Avant-Garde Artist and Performer, Dies at 72

By MARGALIT FOX

Published: December 30, 2008 New York Times

Even by conceptual-art standards, Willoughby Sharp’s work stood out. There was his gestational spin in a clothes dryer. There was the curious affair of the talcum powder, the teddy bear and the tab of LSD. And there was the Oklahoma Gun Incident, which members of the art world still discuss, with a mixture of horror and awe, more than 30 years later.

Mr. Sharp, the Ivy League-educated scion of one of New York’s most socially prominent families, who in the 1960s and afterward was on the cutting edge of the American avant-garde as a performer, producer, writer, publisher, curator, video artist and much else, died on Dec. 17 in Manhattan. He was 72 and lived in Brooklyn.

The cause was cancer, his wife, Pamela Seymour Smith Sharp, said.

A central figure in conceptual and performance art back when those forms were new and daring, Mr. Sharp was concerned with making art that was as much for the mind as it was for the eye. Along with artists like Chris Burden and Nam June Paik, Mr. Sharp helped expand the very idea of what constituted a work of art.

Mr. Sharp was also known as the publisher of Avalanche, a widely respected, handsomely produced art magazine he founded with the writer and filmmaker Liza Béar. Published for just 13 issues between 1970 and 1976, Avalanche featured in-depth interviews with many rising contemporary artists of the day, among them Mr. Burden, William Wegman and Joseph Beuys, the charismatic German artist of whom Mr. Sharp was an early champion.

As a curator, Mr. Sharp attracted international attention with “Earth Art,” a 1969 exhibition at Cornell University. Groundbreaking in every sense of the term, the exhibition featured site-specific installations — by Dennis Oppenheim, Robert Smithson, Hans Haacke and others — that were hewn, molded or otherwise created from the land itself. Mr. Sharp also ran the Willoughby Sharp Gallery, on Spring Street in SoHo, from 1988 to 2004.

Mr. Sharp’s film and video works are in the collections of major museums around the world, including the Museum of Modern Art in New York and the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. In 1976 he represented the United States at the Venice Biennale.

Willoughby Sharp was born in Manhattan on Jan. 23, 1936. His family appeared often in the society pages; as the announcement of Mr. Sharp’s first marriage in The New York Times pointed out in 1960, he was “a nephew of the dowager Lady Eliott of London and Redheugh, Scotland, widow of Sir Gilbert Eliott, tenth baronet of the Clan of Eliott.” Mr. Sharp’s mother, a former Ziegfeld Girl whose marriage to his father had caused a family scandal of no small dimension, was by all accounts a refreshing counterweight.

Mr. Sharp earned a bachelor’s degree in art history from Brown University in 1957, followed by graduate work at the University of Paris, the University of Lausanne and Columbia University, where he was a student of the noted art historian Meyer Schapiro. He later taught at the School of Visual Arts in New York, the University of Rhode Island and elsewhere.

Mr. Sharp’s first marriage, to Renata Hengeler, ended in divorce, as did his second, to Shavon Martin. Besides his wife, Pamela, Mr. Sharp is survived by a daughter from his first marriage, Saskia Sharp of Düsseldorf, Germany, and two grandchildren.

Much of Mr. Sharp’s art was rooted in autobiography. In “Saskia,” first performed in 1974, he mourned losing touch with his daughter, whom he was unable to see after his first marriage ended.

As the magazine Art in America recounted the work this year, Mr. Sharp “videotaped himself in front of a live audience as he attempted to recapture Saskia by re-enacting her birth — albeit with a difference. After shaving and covering his body in powder and perfume and dropping LSD, he crawled into a crib wearing only a diaper and, after much angst-ridden convulsing, ‘gave birth’ to the teddy bear he had stuffed between his legs.”

Another work, “Stay!,” Mr. Sharp’s account of a turbulent love affair, had its premiere in 1974 at the University of Oklahoma. As a camera rolled, he and a female student volunteer disported themselves passionately on a bed. Their every word and deed was transmitted by video to the audience, locked in the campus gym nearby.

Then, without warning, Mr. Sharp slapped his partner across the face. They struggled, and from beneath the mattress he pulled a pistol. At the precise moment the video feed went dead, he fired a single shot.

This did not play in Norman, Okla. The audience rushed the doors and poured from the gym. They found the young woman in an adjoining room, bewildered but unhurt.

And then there was the clothes dryer. In “Full Womb,” a 1975 work, Mr. Sharp climbed into an industrial dryer with a baby bottle, shut the door and tumbled while imagining his parents making love.

The 15-minute performance seemed to recapitulate his own gestation, only faster, warmer and with more static cling.

Valueyou (talk)

Happy New Year!

[[Image:1953_S Novym Godom.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Happy New Year! (Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!).Thanks for keeping a look out on my Ukrainian political editing :) — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Negative resistance talk page

Please don't do that. I sympathise with what you are saying but it is going to get an already difficult process hugely more bogged down if an edit war breaks out on the talk page. SpinningSpark 15:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Baloha and Tymoshenko agree

Did you see this, Baloha and Tymoshenko finally agree on something :) Cutting the wages of high-ranking officials and MPs. So there is hope! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Košare - why do we bother

Hi Ev! I see you're a glutton for punishment when it comes to patrolling the Kosovo pages. I started to try to raise the standard on this article by asking for WP:RS and all I got for my troubles was repeated assertions that a Serb-language documentary made by a state-sponsored journalist fit the bill. Over the following weeks I've watched both sies playing every conceivable tune on the info box data - everybody won the battle, casualty figures rise and fall by orders of magnitude... There's nothing encyclopedic about this article, it's just a forum for propagandists and revisionists. Can't we just delete it until someone comes up with some reliable sources? -- Timberframe (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Timberframe. :-) Indeed, could we... ? I would really, but really love to delete that particular entry, and a substantial part of all the entries on genocides, massacres, attrocities, minor battles & skirmishes... all those "look how bad [radom ethnic group] are !!!" type of entries that plague Wikipedia. In my opinion, the tiny encyclopedic significance of most of those entries do not justify the amount of time they demand from non-partisan editors trying to make them compliant with our content policies.

Based on our deletion policy, the English-language Wikipedia has a deletion process that includes articles for deletion. That it would be the proper venue to propose that entry's demise.

Since you have already looked into at least some of that entry's details, I would ask you to write a rationale for deletion to present to the rest of the community (in this case, probably mentioning a lack of reliable sources to verify the entry's content). – If you wish, I will be more than happy to help you with the bureaucratic steps ot articles for deletion, and to counsel you about the deletion rationale. :-)

Simply write why you think the entry merits deletion; why you think Wikipedia would be better off without it. If you wish, you can draft a rationale in your user space first (e.g. at User:Timberframe/sandbox), to polish it without time constraints, and then copy it to the page where the actual deletion discussion will take place.

In any case, I'm at your service. :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

hi

Timber, a copy-editor we could call on at FAC is indeed valuable: there is such demand that I'd ration any call that would be made on you! I'm always on the look-out for more c-es. Your blank user-page: it's just that it comes out red everywhere you sign (that is how I noticed you), which is why I thought you might consider turning the link blue by writing just one sentence or so on the user page (perhaps something practical—your facility in several languages, or even your interest in them if you want to underplay?). I want to know: do you edit on the French WP? I'm most interested in it as a comparator with the Eng.WP.

Gropecunt Lane

Hi, I reverted your edits. I accidently used rollback so was unable to explain why, but please allow me to explain here.

• "Streets with that name were often in the busiest parts of medieval towns and cities, and at in least one instance appears to have been an important thoroughfare." - this is, I believe, the proper grammatical structure. Your revision makes it unclear as to exactly what is being discussed.
• "The first record of the word "grope" being used in the indecent sense of sexual touching appears" - this is a direct reference to the OED entry for the word - indecent is the exact term used.
• " and in 1285 French prostitutes in Montpellier were confined to a single street." - this is used as a further example to demonstrate that such activities were not confined to England.

Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Mongolian language

Hi Timberframe! It was suggested to me on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mongolian language/archive1 that you are a very skilful copyeditor and versed in linguistics. I'm just trying to get Mongolian language to FA status, but as I don't have the ability to further improve the wording (not being a native speaker of English and having done what I could), some help from a third party will probably be necessary. I can assist with any infos and explanations that might become necessary. I'd be very grateful if you could come over! Best regards, G Purevdorj (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Timberframe! The nomination is over for the time being, but you'll certainly agree there's still some work to do before the next nomination. You might proceed with editing and we could continue the discussion on the normal talk page. Regards, G Purevdorj (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do so. I was a bit confused to find our discussion consigned to the archives, so I left it alone to see what was happening (I'm new to the FA process!). Anyway, thanks for your answers, which help me understand what the article is saying. At the moment I don't have many opportunities to spend a lot of time on wiki, just the odd 5-10 minutes here and there between other jobs, but I will get back to the article as and when I can and I'll try to work your answers in. All the best -- Timberframe (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Eurostar article

Just wanted to say thank you very much, it is nice of someone to notice the work that was going on. I'm hoping to get the Eurostar article re-evaluated soon, I believe it deserves far better than a mere 'start' quality rating from WikiProject Europe, would you know how best to get them to come an have a look at the article and give it a more fitting grade for the new developments? 81.111.115.63 (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Kyiv / Kiev

Hi Ev! I'm sure you were fully aware before you started on your campaign to remove all references to Kyiv from wikipedia that you were courting controversy. Your edit comments justify this action as: "to reflect common English usage & for consistency with the article on Kiev". For your information, Kiev is the Russian version of the Ukrainian name Kyiv and was enforced on Ukraine, and by extension the rest of the world until independence in 1991. Since then the Ukrainian language and the use of Kyiv - both in Cyrilic and Latin scripts - has gained wide useage. While it is not yet as widely used as Kiev it is sufficiently common to warrant it remaining unmolested where it occurs in wikipedia. Furthermore, where in WP:NCGN does it say that names used within article must be consistent with other article names? Note that WP:NCGN relates only to the naming of articles, not to the naming of locations in other articles; your use of this policy seems inappropriate. The Kiev page itself has a whole archive of unresolved debate as to which version should be used for the page title, and for the uninvolved the choice is largely immaterial since both are offered in the opening sentence and a redirect exists to accomodate the alternative spelling. "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. So what is the purpose of this campaign? -- Timberframe (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Timberframe. I knew that those edits would be perceived as controvertial by some (mostly Ukrainian) editors who prefer the form Kyiv. But those edits constitute a straightforward application of our editorial principles (as described in our policies & guidelines), and their purpose is to bring our articles in line with those principles.

• Although our naming conventions are mainly intended for choosing titles, they do relate also to the names used within articles. Their main criterion of using the names "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" describes our general editorial approach to names, and is not restricted to titles only.
• Our naming conventions for geographic names currently state that "[w]ithin articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title".

  This point used to be more clearly worded. Until early February, the 3rd general guideline stated: "The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article." This clearer explanation was altered by a single editor, apparently without discussion, and will probably be re-introduced soon.

  In other words, the name used in the article on the city (currently Kiev) should be used consistently across Wikipedia. – That is also the spirit behind the Manual of Style's general principle of internal consistency.

You said: The Kiev page itself has a whole archive of unresolved debate as to which version should be used for the page title.

The long discussions at Talk:Kiev & Talk:Kiev/naming do not represent an unresolved debate, but a few editors' insistence in using their preferred name despite it being disfavoured by our current naming conventions. - The fact that Kiev is the name "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" is obvious to any dispassionate anglophone.

You said: the choice is largely immaterial since both are offered in the opening sentence and a redirect exists to accomodate the alternative spelling.

The choice between the two names in other articles is not immaterial, because one of them is widely recognized by our intended readership, while the other one remains an obscure reference to many anglophones. It's the principle of least astonishment. - Our readers should not be forced to follow a link to discover that Kyiv is an alternative name for the city they have always known as Kiev.

Besides, redirects are an aid to navigation and searching, not a way of circumventing our current naming conventions. This specific one exists to assist any reader searching for "Kyiv", or any editor who mistakenly writes Kyiv instead of Kiev. It is not there to allow for the use of a name disfavoured by our current naming conventions.

You said: Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another.

That is true. My edits, however, do not change a controversial name to another; they change a sometimes obscure name to the one "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", and they provide to our readership the benefits of internal consistency within a reference work. - To the dispassionate anglophone, there's absolutely nothing controversial in that.

By the way, the Russian name of the city may have been enforced in Ukraine itself, but there was no similar imposition of Kiev on the English language. Instead, the adoption of one name -and not the other- was due to obvious historical circumstances: the fact that Kiev was under Russian control since the mid-17th century until 1991.

This usage may change in the future: Kiev may be phased out and Kyiv adopted as the name commonly used in English-language publications. If/when that happens, Wikipedia should reflect that change, but not before. – We should not diminish our hability to communicate with our anglophone readership to cater for the whims of a few editors who dislike the current usages of the English language. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Poojary

Hello, Timberframe. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Tinu Cherian - 14:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Class 373

No problemo. Hammersfan 18/05/09, 13.22 BST

Jamot

Jamot is a collective term for the Jat clans of the Kacchi region of Baluchistan. Although some Jamot now claim to be to Baluch, which in itself is not incorrect, and several Jat tribes have in history been incorporated into Baluch tribes.

--WALTHAM2 (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do

--WALTHAM2 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Punjab religious demographics

i respect that you have looked for the correct demographics and used them in the articles i would like to thankyou although in the jat peoople i had removed the photo for not bieng relavant as it was not regards Misterconginialtastical —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterconginialtastical (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, I noticed your concerns over user sikh 'history' who claims to be a scholar but has objectives rather than history mainly vandalism caste and food, I would suggest reporting him to admin if he continues with his vandalistic behaviour Morbid Fairy (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Morbid Fairy aka Satanoid see here , you have been previously reprimanded for this type of behaviour under the Satanoid account and on your WPOuting violation here. People are assuming Good Faith on your new account so I suggest you do the same. Your behaviour towards Sineed is very bad. Please stop spamming every editor on Wikipedia and claiming to be a victim. I note also that you were recently blocked for Vandalism for 31 hours. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Policy references and wiki syntax

I recently noticed that you are sometimes confusing the syntax for wikilinks to WP policy with the syntax for including a template. For example, in Talk:Ralph Nader, you coded {{WP:BLP}} instead of [[WP:BLP]]. As you can see, that caused the entire BLP policy page to be included in the Nader talk page, in the middle of your comment. I notice you have also made the same style of mistake in edit comments; correctly using the link syntax will result in clickable links to policy in the article history page; your edit comments do not, but are otherwise harmless. Studerby (talk)

Udham Singh, Jatt ? Kamboj

Yes, Udham Singh, aged 26 years, son of Mewa Singh, Jat of village Kasel, Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar. He had returned to India by S.S. Korea and Tosha Maru.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_1gQS3LOafAC&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=%22udham+singh%22%2B%22mewa%22&source=bl&ots=BmRRdISVt7&sig=Nhxj-zPuQCwuhqXDLxZ2mrrZN5s&hl=en&ei=xrZGSsrmFpOwjAeIjpxj&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

Regds Morbid Fairy (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are you telling me? This was a discussion between Misterconginialtastical and Sikh-history (see here and here); I was not involved. Regards Timberframe (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the definitive reference.http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z0SOfZwnXZIC&pg=PA179&dq=udham+singh+kamboj. Father was Tehal Singh Kamboj of Sunam. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

See Comments on Jatt Sikh

See what I have written and maybe we can re-write the first paragraph. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made a start on rewrittin Jatt Sikh. See what you think and see if I am headed in the right direction. I think focus should be on those Jatts that were Sikh, and leave the ethnic part under jat People. Note, I looked at ethnoreligious group definition, and a Sikh (because they miostly come from Punjab) could be considered an ethnoreligious group but not JattSikh, because there religion is exactly the same as other Sikhs.--Sikh-history (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Need some input there. Having some problems with Information-Line. He does not seem to understand the basics of wikipedia. Cheers --Sikh-history (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Rudolph Valentino

One of the main reasons I removed that is that the comments and content were posted using a style that I, and several other editors, have come to recognize from an editor who left Wikipedia because she was repeatedly confronted about POV editing, spamming the silent star articles with references and external links to her blogspot website. The final thing was when it was discovered she was using two (or more) usernames to work here and when she was confronted about it and was told at reliable sources noticeboard that her site wasn't considered reliable, chose to stop editing. The main focus besides old stars was to thrash the trashy book Hollywood Babylon, which is a POV redflag to us that this IP editor was that user. That is why it is obvious to me that the IP was referring directly to the editor who first reverted the additions to Valentino and it raises redflags regarding POV editing and not properly representing what sources actually say. Just to clarify it. LaVidaLoca (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation

I apologize if I am doing this incorrectly, but I am new to leaving comments and replies. If I understand correctly, Timberframe wanted to know a reference for putting the comma inside the quotation marks. I checked the Wikipedia style sheet and saw that the comments on this subject were quite heated. Simply stated, American English always includes the period or comma inside the quotation marks; however, this is not true with British English. Numerous reference sources for the American format are included in the Wikipedia discussion of the manual of style (e.g., the MLA Style sheet, or for that matter, any style sheet, such as the N.Y. Times). Since I taught English for 3 years at a university in Boston, I'll go with the MLA style sheet. Other references: William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, The Elements of Style and Hans P. Guth, Concise English Handbook. Because American and British usages are different, I have only made this correction to articles that appear to be American in origin or about American subjects. Hope this helps. --Onesius (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Valentino

Regarding this question: Leider's book is already in the references section, if you're inclined to use it and fix the formatting. See ref #7. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. All the information is already there, thats whats annoying me about people who like to revert and not fix. I know the info, I dont know how to format. Leider, Emily. Dark Lover: The Life and Death of Rudolph Valentino. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003. ISBN 0-374-28239-0. And then of course all the pages I left on the talk page are the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.214.235 (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There may well be more than one edition with different page numbers. The anon IP editor quotes "Leider" and page numbers so I assume he/she has access to a book. But which book by Leider? I can't assume it's the same book as is cited elsewhere - perhaps Leider wrote more than one book which mentions Valentino. Even if it's the same book, is it the same edition? Different editions could have different page numbers for the same material. I'm happy to construct the refs, but as I'm working blind, without access to the sources, I'm not going to make any assumptions about what the sources are. This is substantially the response that Wildhartlivi gave over a week ago [Talk:Rudolph_Valentino#Broken_Refs|here], before the latest round of reinstating the incomplete refs.

However, now that we have full info, I'll add the refs now. I'll be using the cite book template, why not have a look at the template and how I copy and paste it into the article so you can do it yourself in the future?

Best -- Timberframe (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see your email. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, points duly noted. I lack your past experience and so I have only AGF to guide me. -- Timberframe (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Pagan and Buddhist Jatts in the 17th and 18th Century Panjab

We are trying to establish whether Pagan and Buddhist Jatts actually existed in Punjab in the 17th and 18th Century. Please join the discussion. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Source

I noticed that you removed the film from Joe Jonas here. Do you know what would be a reliable source to confirm the movie? I would use the internet movie database, but I heard that it wasn't a reliable source. Also, the film is also on Taylor Swift's page, perhaps you can remove it if it hasn't yet? Cheers. :) Alfred Lau (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the correction[3] I missed running over that text.
Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it what gnomes do. -- Timberframe (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Danko

Hallo, Timberframe!
Thank you for your correcting Danko section on Les' Poderviansky article.
I gave you some considerations on my discussion page. Alonka —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonka Sokol (talk • contribs) 21:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Lampachee

what's your problem? why you undo my edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lampachee (talk • contribs) 09:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Because they don't meet any of Wikipedia's standards. -- Timberframe (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Casillas' height

That reference there is bulls***. That same site says Raul is 182 cm (with Casillas 182.2 cm). But when you look at any photo of the 2 players together, you'll see that Casillas has at least an inch on Raul (see link below).

http://www.as.com/recorte/20090421dasdasftb_12/C280/Ies/Casillas_Raul_durante_partido.jpg

211.31.24.149 (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that in the photo you linked Casillas appears to be taller than Raul by more than the 2mm claimed in Real Madrid's website. Trouble is that on Wikipedia claims are judged on whether they are supported by reliable sources, which his team's website should be; and definitely not on our opinions and deductions (the latter being termed original research). The only way forward that's going to stick is to find more independent reliable sources and go with the consensus figure. Of course if we accept that the Real Madrid website has made a mistake, it could be that they've made Raul too tall rather than Casillas too short! -- Timberframe (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The word "none"

From Oxford American Dictionaries:

It is sometimes held that none can take only a singular verb, never a plural verb.… There is little justification, historical or grammatical, for this view. None is descended from Old English nān, meaning 'not one', and has been used for around a thousand years with both a singular and a plural verb, depending on the context and the emphasis needed.

— Walloon (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Walloon! I'm a Brit and have never come across this view before, so thanks for enlightening me. Maybe the more relaxed use is more common in the US. Anyhow, in accordance with WP:ENGVAR and in particular WP:RETAIN the IP's change from singular to plural should not have been made, and my reversion to the singular made it read "correctly" for more people since for those who subscribe to the OAD's view either appears valid in these cases. Cheers -- Timberframe (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Colon

Hi. I've answered your question on my talk page. Station1 (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Zakk Wylde

You've reinstated the BLP tag I removed. I removed any unsourced entries, hence I removed the tag. If you can refer to the points in that section that still require it, then I'll take care of them. Thedarxide (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thedarxide, I can only see three citations for the whole section. It may just be a matter of putting the refs in, but as it stands the vast majority of the "Appearances in media" appears unsourced. To be honest this section is trivial and unencyclopedic; I'm more concerned about the lack of supporting sources for the sections dealing with his personal history and family. I've raised this on the article's talk page. Anything you can do to improve the quality and quantity of sources would be great. Cheers Timberframe (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Xmas

[[File:Smiling Christmas Tree.svg|thumb|left|Merry Christmas, History2007 (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)]]

from beeeeeeeeew

Well hi. its beeeeeeeeew and I got your message today. the reason i'm collecting these facts about miley is because i'm doing a report in grammar class on her. and i'm trying to get the most facts i can get. and noah cyrus,i dont exactly know which site i got it from, but I think it said it on lyrics.net when I was learning a song from the band coldplay. I went to miley cyrus news after that and it said an article about noah and when she went to do face of god in 2005. they probably made a mistake. well thnx anyway.........

PS. i fixed my userpage!

Hi , how you doing????

Hi, how are you??? Mate you started a discussion on language issue on Punjab (India) talk page but never responded??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Migelot (talk • contribs) 08:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Edits.

Don't patronize me. This can be viewed as a personal attack. - Zhang He (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing personal, just pointing out that Wikipedia has a policy that states "one should avoid:... Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists" and that if you insist - as evidently you do - on going against it then you need to discuss it with the community, otherwise you can expect your edits to be reverted. -- Timberframe (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Timberframe's edits and justification were correct. It was nothing remotely like a person attack. "find another hobby" was a little flippant, but wasn't offensive, and largely to the point for those with thick skins. Zhang He, your comment previous to Timberframes' edit, "If that's true, then the same can be said for the YouTube and Twitter links. Do not remove again." shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy, and makes an unjustified implied threat. Piano non troppo (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin Bieber edits

Hi, I was working on another article, and I can't fix them right now, so I was wondering could you revert all the malicious vandalism that Qwertkeyboard did to the Justin Bieber article. I always work so hard on Justin Bieber-related articles and they become vandalized. If you could do this it would be a great help. Thanks!! Candyo32 (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I was assuming good faith for now. Trouble is that the tables weren't sourced in the first place so it's not clear if these changes are malicious vandalism or based on a factual /more up-to-date sources. There are some obvious problems with the edits which could be nothing more than inexperience. -- Timberframe (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, having seen the edits that followed, seems my good faith was misplaced. -- Timberframe (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I myself at first thought the edits were good faith, but the user had switched all the numbers in the table anyway. Thanks for the help! Candyo32 (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of Ahir gotras

I have nominated List of Ahir gotras, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ahir gotras. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahir

Hi, you have undone my edits, where I had removed poorly sourced information, and misleading picture. Please note, Nesfield, Bhgwan Suryawanshi, William Hunter has got more weightage than these unreliable sources. Plz. talk to meIkon ^No-Blast 20:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reinstated material which was supported by references. In order to remove it you need to explain why they are not reliable sources or why their claims are fringe theories. Additionally, you need to cite reliable sources for the material you introduced in its place. As it stands your last few edits give the impression that you're pushing a particular point of view rather than reporting neutrally the variety of theories that exist. That may be a wrong impression, but it's up to you to correct it. Best regards, Timberframe (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

you haven't checked those refs. They are views from obscure w/s, and sd be rmvd, and is not relevant to the article too Ikon ^No-Blast 20:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "w\s". Who says they're "obscure"? Do you have access to all the referenced sources? Have you checked them? Please can you explain how each source stands up (or falls) when tested against WP:RS? -- Timberframe (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1)The Article is about ahir, not thakur, gujjar etc. so, no need to mention them.

2)The Avar=Ahir, is not suggested by any credible source.

3) All the materials I have added are in Bombay Caste & Tribe, Vol.1, by very respected anthropologists and historians, naming them individually. Ikon ^No-Blast 20:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(This discussion continues at Talk:Ahirs#Recent edits by Ikonoblast.)

user:Linguisticgeek

Hi, since you seem to be well versed in wikipedia policy, kindly check the above users edits who is indiscriminately tagging all the articles I edit after dispute on Talk:Forward class. Thanks in advance for your help. Ikon ^No-Blast 17:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have addressed the issues with Forward class, and responded to the IP editor who accused you of trying to destroy the article. I don't see any conclusive evidence to equate this IP to user:Linguisticgeek, but I have resonded to the IP's edits on user:Linguisticgeek's discussion page anyway. If there are other articles that you want me to have a look at, please let me know which ones. All the best, -- Timberframe (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Seem to have missed all the brouhaha.Linguisticgeek (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

user:ikonoblast

I have seen your comments on user Linguisticgeek talkpage. OK. But please see what ikonoblast has done on Lalu Prasad Yadav and Yadava wiki page and check whether what he has done is right. I'm not so sure, according to me there a lot of POV in those articles. Thanks.90.46.215.187 (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That may be the case and, since you ask, I'll have a look at those articles. But my comments on Linguisticgeek's talkpage were in relation to Forward class, and in relation to that article what I see is a lot of unsourced material, including the very definition of the article's subject, and a fair challenge by Ikonoblast. One of Wikipedia's policies is assume good faith and I'm not seeing that being upheld when a user is accused of destroying an article on the grounds that he's allegedly made contraversial edits to other articles. You're right to be concerned about POV: we're required to write in a neutral and balanced way, but above all we're required to report what is said by reliable sources, regardless of our personal POV. If different reliable sources take different positions on a subject then we have to report both or all sides. That doesn't mean that editors with a POV can't contribute to an article: having a variety of points of view represented among a bunch of editors can be very healthy, provided that they work together to achieve a neutral balance. -- Timberframe (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at Ikonoblast's edits to Lalu Prasad Yadav from August 2009 and what I see from him is a series of challenges to uncited claims and editorialising and many cases of rewriting passages in a more neutral tone. The fact that there were so many opportunities for him to do so indicates that the article was poorly sourced and not written as neutrally as possible in the first place and Ikonoblasts edits appear to have improved the article in line with Wiki policies.

I've looked at Ikonoblast's edits to Yadava and while he made some major and controversial changes in 2009 I note that he ultimately self-reverted them and tried, unsuccessfully, to engage other editors in discussion about them. His 2010 edits appear reasonable, being mostly additions of referenced material and most recently a challenge to a refimprove tag on the whole article which I consider less useful than a refimprove|section tag for the few articles which have large chunks of unsourced material.

If you can cite specific edits to illustrate your concerns I'll look at them again. -- Timberframe (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Clash of the Titans (tour)

While the tour took place in the early 1990s (undisputed), the peak of each band's popularity was in the 1980s, and the following decade had barely begun. Hence, it would obviously make more sense to refer to them as "several popular American thrash metal bands of the 1980s" To call them "popular bands of the 1990s" would be something of an anachronism. Does that sort of make sense? --Danteferno (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly, thanks. I'd just got there myself and left you a note on your talkpage :) -- Timberframe (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy new year. Keep looking forward in 2010! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Colitis

I re-wrote the section call wastebasket (see [4]). I was thinking of wastebasket diagnosis - though the description in that article isn't quite what I had the impression was a "wastebasket" diagnosis. Actually, wastebasket diagnosis probably needs some re-writing; it isn't exclusively psychiatric related diagnoses, e.g. PMID 18658072 ([5]). Atypical colitis, AFAIK, is a term used when it isn't possible to neatly slot a colitis into one of the accepted categories, i.e. the "atypical" type is a collection of waste that doesn't fix into one of the other categories. Nephron  T|C 04:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahir

Hi, Timberframe. Kindly have a look at Talk:Ahirs, disambiguation issue. Dab, had proposed splitting the article, which I contested on talk page. I also urged Dab to discuss it, but he seems to have ignored it. check his talk page too. Can you please evaluate the situation, being a neutral person, and suggest some action. Thanks in advance. Ikon ^No-Blast 16:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being thick here, but I can't see the disambiguation / article split proposal. I assume your comment under the heading "Ahir/Abhir Disambiguation" is part of the discussion, but I can't see what it's a response to. -- Timberframe (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

See the article head, it is tagged by Dab. Also, check his talk page. Ikon ^No-Blast 17:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm with you now. I've responded on the article talk page as I don't understand how Dbachmann wants to split the existing content or why. -- Timberframe (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Podervyansky

No! I changed "Podervianskiy" by "Poderviansky" (eliminated "i" before the end), and I was too lazy to change also "i" by "y". I believe that the best spelling is in the title. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Request=

Hi, can you guide me what to do when an admin is threatening me with a block for no reason and apparently to prevent me discussing on talk:Forward caste. See my talk page too. Ikon ^No-Blast 17:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

Happy Easter!
This year on the same day's in the East and West! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 16:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Marati Television

I saw the discussion page and i totally agree with you  Done, I had mearged the List of Marati TV channel in the Marati Television now you delete the page.--UserKkm010 talk 13:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for removing the vandalism from my user talk page. It is greatly appreciated. Alanraywiki (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Message to You

Thank you for highlighting this point to me earlier James Whalley (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Religion

"Not balanced" ??? Please do explain. Most scientists are not religious, per recent scientific developments. Europeans tend to be less religious (known fact). Australians too. Not true in the US, Russia and Islamic world. It seems perfectly balanced. What are your arguments please? --Little sawyer (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You say Most scientists are not religious both here and in your edit to the article. Firstly, to comply with WP:V and WP:BURDEN the onus is on you to support this claim by citing reliable sources that make it. I'm afraid that neither your own opinion alone, however well informed, nor your assertion of "tendancies" and "known facts" carry any weight when it comes to the community deciding what to accept. Secondly, the claim is not balanced because you do not mention or cite the many sources that refer to religious scientists. If I may venture an observation, your hypothesis seems to be based on an equation of "religion" with fundamental scriptural literalism - believing that every word of the genesis and creation narratives is true - and on the belief that these are of such importance that to question them is to undermine all religious belief. If you read widely on the subject of religion, you'll discover that most religions are fundamentally about relationship with God / gods / others / self, and that the ever-widening scientific panorama merely illustrates the wonder of God's / gods' / nature's creativity; thus the view you're proposing gives undue weight to one aspect of religion which is, to "most" religious people, of only minor importance. -- Timberframe (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to Talk:Religion#Edits_to_lead_re_scientists, please feel free to continue it there. Cheers. Timberframe (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiments

I think your heart is in the right place. However, if you will familiarize yourself with the history of content disputes over LaRouche-related articles, you will soon discover that normal Wikipedia conflict resolution measures do not apply to them. Will Beback routinely permablocks anyone who disputes his edits as a banned user abusing multiple accounts. He doesn't bother with checkuser or the standard sockpuppet investigation approach. Have a look at his block log and see for yourself. Long established editors who confront him on this get intimidated until they back off: here is one example. This problem has existed for years, and I think that the best outcome at this point is a few good jokes at Will's expense. Paths of Change (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you feel you're up against. I just don't think that resorting to making yourself look silly is going to help. There are means to challenge abusive behaviour at all levels in wiki, but if you feel you've exhausted all of them and are resigned to the fact that he's going to get his way whatever you do, then I reckon the best you can do is leave it alone for a while with your reputation intact. -- Timberframe (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the schooling Timberframe

I appreciate your feedback Timberframe. I will try to use the tools you gave me wisely.

Also, when you correct someone(s) english, don't just criticise, place the correction in your message too. You mentioned my use of pronouns and metaphors was incorrect, but you did not properly label them so I would know better in the future. Please be a half full person, not a half empty one.

I appreciate your support, and thank you for making me feel welcome at wikipedia :).

LB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labargeboy (talk • contribs) 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. If I wasn't running to keep up with your changes I'd have had more time to spend discussing them with you. Several of your changes were factually wrong and many of the others introduced subjectivity and editorial comment which flies in the face of wiki policy. Please take time to read the 5 pillars (see the link in the welcome note I left you), and then ask yourself whether your change is factually sound and really necessary. That way you won't risk getting discouraged by seeing your edits reverted (although this can be part of a constructive process - see WP:BRD).

I don't think it's my job to teach you English grammar, but I can elaborate on metaphors and pronouns or point you to online tutorials if you like.

Anyhow, you're welcome here and I hope you enjoy contributing to the articles. Cheers -- Timberframe (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Bosniaks

Greetings fellow person :),

Today you permitted a reversal of a change in the section named Bosniaks, relating to Slavic ethnic group.

I would invite you to review the reversal please. I have read Ethnic_group section and in the first paragraph there are 5 points which are used to determine the ethnic group of a people.

I have researched that Bosniaks do not share enough Slavic points out of those 4 points to be considered Slavic. I will take Serbs and Bosniaks as an example in comparison.

Heritage:

• Bosniaks=Allies of Ottoman empire and Austro Hungarian empire;
• Serbs=On opoosing side. And there is evidence that Bosniaks and Serbs have spent almost every single moment in history on opposing sides seperated by river Drina.

Language:

• Bosniaks=Now called Bosnain language mainly due to considerable amount of Germanisms and Italian words with Latin letters;
• Serbs=Completely Slavic and very Russian oriented accent and language with Cyrillic letters;

Culture:

• Bosniaks=Culture that celebrates Otoman and Austro Hungarian empires;
• Serbs=Opposes Bosniak culture completely, war 1991-1995 is evidence, celebrate Russian culture and see them as cultural allies.

Common Ancestry (endogamy):

• Bosniaks=Evidence of heritage and insufficient mixing to share heritage can be physically proven I1b.
• Serbs=Do not have this DNA signature sufficiently. In fact if we were to look at all other Slavic nations, Bosniaks in fact do not share more physical heritage with Slavic nations than Great Britain does with Slavic nations.

All of these are can be researched furhter, and I think you will find that Bosniaks do not have enough of these points to be definitely sure as to what ethnic group they really belong to, so I vote to remove that part from the section.

Thank you for patience :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.173.220 (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear fellow editor,

The role of the pending changes reviewer is to filter out vandalism and WP:BLP violations; as this change was not obvious vandalism I accepted it and moved on. As an editor I could have undone it, as I often do, on the grounds that it is an unsourced change; however as the whole paragraph was unsourced and I have no sources to either confirm or refute any of it I assumed good faith on the part of all the involved editors and left the addition there for interested editors to discuss. You've put forward a good argument that Bosniaks are not sufficiently Slavic to be labelled so, but as it stands this is your research, whereas the role of the encyclopedia is to collect and present a balanced survey of the published writings from reliable sources on the subject.

One way to justify removal of spurious labels in the future would be to cite respected writings that disprove them in the article. Then, provided that there aren't equally well-cited counter-argumants I'd have no hesitation in reversing such additions in the future.

Thanks for you contributions, and for taking the time to discuss the subject. Happy editing. -- Timberframe (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

what nonsense are u talking ? jovan ducic was a serb ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.77.244.85 (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

even wikipedia of bosnian muslims (which is pretty biased and censored wikipedia) even them they say that jovan ducic was serbian poet ... not to mention what other wikipedias say ,. and its a well known fact ... jovan ducic was serbian from herzegovina , he was not just serb but also serbian nationalist and worked as diplomat for serbian goverment ... http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jovan_Du%C4%8Di%C4%87 if u donnoe the language use google translate ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.77.244.85 (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Formula One season

Hello fellow Wikipedian.

I'm writing on your talk page because one of my edits has been reverted by you (I guess 82.153.175.147 is one of your IP addresses). The information I added is not less encyclopedic that the informations about Sebastian Vettel being the youngest Formula One world champion, and Red Bull having won there first constructor's championship. If my edit is as you have noticed an "originial research", then these two informations also are. So it's not. Like my edit, no sources are required for them to be confirmed. Indeed, you just have to check the history of Formula One to realize it's true. Just check this page : List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions and you will find these three informations : Vettel's the youngest, it's Red Bull Racing's first title, and the five latest Formula One drivers' world championships have been won by drivers competing for five different teams. Where do you see research in that ? It just has to be noted.

I assume you were acting with good faith but I will add back this information unless you give a valuable reason.

Maimai009 (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maimai009! Thanks for your note, and for (rightly) assuming good faith. My thinking goes like this: The standards that en.wiki applies for inclusion of content are independent of context. In other words, the requirements of WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR apply to each edit, regardless of how many times they may have already been neglected in the article. The fact that other parts of the article have survived (so far) does not mean that they either meet the expected standardslet alone define them. In my opinion, adding unsourced material and original research to an article which in large part already reads like a blog doesn't make it a better article, nor does its "blogginess" justify ignoring en.wiki's policies.

I work primarily as a reviewer so I tend to focus on new edits. Please don't feel that I'm singling yours out for criticism or condoning others that appear to be written in similar vein. The quality of this article is a matter I've already raised recently on its talk page and other race fans have offered to tidy it up; it would be really good if you could help them. I'd rather leave that to people who really know the subject and can make informed decisions about which passages to cut and which to find sources for. -- Timberframe (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Accepted revision

You accepted this revision, but it is a clear and grave BLP violation. There is no source for this claim, and stating that mainstream actors engaged in such activity, without strong sourcing, could clearly damage the person's career and reputation. Please be more careful in the future. Do not accept revisions in articles dealing with BLP that are unsourced. Feel free to review our BLP policy, our review policy, or ask me any questions if you have any. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. As I recall the edit repeated a long-standing claim in the article for the film; if there is a problem with the claim please can you check also that article. Unfortunately I cannot recall the name of the film nor the actors involved, and as the edit in question has been rolled back I cannot locate it myself. Cheers -- Timberframe (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

This matter was brought to my attention a while ago privately. So I watchlisted the article for BLP issues. I am a little uncomfortable personally with the subject matter, and don't want to delve into that side of Wikipedia, or get myself involved in researching the topic. But I know that any controversial information about a living person MUST be cited or it can be removed on sight. Generally speaking, all content should be sourced, and some stuff might be ok if we let it stand unsourced or tagged for a while. But when it comes to BLP, we should err on the side of protecting such individuals. So, even if common or long-standing, when should realize that it can be controversial or even damaging to state, unsourced, unverified, that a professional actress performed an unsimilated sex act on film. It could be that the act was in fact simulated, and some people on the internet were fooled and spread the rumor that it was real, or any number of other circumstances. We can't watch a film, then report back on the internet on these matters. We MUST have strong sourcing, for the good of the encyclopedia, and for the good of the reputation of the individuals involved. Just, in the future, if you are doing revision acceptance, make sure to be conscious of BLP issues, such as unsourced claims. I wish you luck. Sorry if this reply is a bit long, ha. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Happy new year to you and З Різдвом Христовим!
— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Kurdish people

A solution needs to be found quickly, please re-join discussion at Talk:Kurdish people#Turkish Propaganda. Kermanshahi (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Input

Hi fellow editor, could I possible ask you to put some neutral input into this discussion. I notice you did that in the past at Jatt Sikh, and other India related articles. Thanks--SH 14:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I have added Dianna lead for now which seemed the most neutral. Thanks--SH 23:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Please help: Cardamine pratensis

You helped before, will be grateful again. See Cardamine pratensis. I find it difficult to enter a reference a second time. Some times I can do it sometimes things go wrong. Will be grateful.Osborne 15:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Done Timberframe (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Ruben Canelo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ruben Canelo 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/Ruben Canelo 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. --Bejnar (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Timberframe. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Persepolis F.C. Honours page

Please lock this page from public. It keeps getting vandalised ARKTAK (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)