User talk:Giftiger wunsch/Archives/GA2

Your leaving

I'm very sorry to hear that. Wikipedia is a great project, and it benefits from people like you very much. If it weren't such contributors it would be a very dull and sad place, and probably would die soon. For myself I must say I had my moments of doubts also and one, at the time what it seemed, a complete breakup with wikipedia, what you might guess from my talk page - where I was blocked from editing. But I think I never decided to completely leave the project. As if I believed it would help me, as I helped the project. And it does help even now. At least for the training my vocabulary skills. :-) And it makes my synapses in good shape, since it takes a lot of thinking sometimes. I managed to distance from things in times of trouble, I don't how I did it, but I did. And this lasts for over 4 years and I hope it will last more at least to see you back in the project.

In hope you will reconsider your decision, best regards --Biblbroks's talk 13:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sad to see you go

Sorry to hear you're leaving. I enjoyed the little discourse I had with you in connection with one article. I thought you made valuable contributions and you showed a lot of integrity. Peace. Minor4th (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back. Glad you're here. Minor4th (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please Stay

Don't let them get to you. You're too good an editor to leave, and I for one will miss you. GregJackP (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Giftiger, I would just consider the source of some of it. If an editor has the attitude comparable with a "Zipper-Suited Sun God" it is best to just realize that it is their problem and ignore them. Best wishes in any case. GregJackP (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please don't worry about your reputation. Even if you did something horrible, it would be all forgotten before long. —Soap— 22:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see you back. GregJackP (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of InTopSens

An article that you have been involved in editing, InTopSens, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InTopSens. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Codf1977 (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Donald G. Martin

An article that you have been involved in editing, Donald G. Martin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald G. Martin. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

SPI notice - Dmartinaus

I have initiated an Sock-Puppet Investigation on Dmartinaus at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dmartinaus. If you have concerns or opinions on this issue, you may make those known in the "Comments by other users" section of the SPI. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 16:02, 16 June 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) 20:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

wb

Welcome back. Just, please, try extra hard to not make up your own rules (first and third paragraphs) in the future. Jeh (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That was a considerable time ago and I was not "making up my own rules", I was basing my actions on what I had observed in other similar situations, and hadn't realised that this was not the correct procedure. I was already informed at the time that this was not correct policy, and I dropped out of the discussion and later helped the original author to create a draft of a new article and resolve the conflict. I would recommend you look a bit harder before you start leaving inappropriate duplicate warnings on users' talk pages, and remember to assume good faith in future. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It was about a month ago and you've been editing here for over two years. But I'm glad to hear you have accepted that point - I didn't know, because you never responded directly before, you just deleted my comment to you here, and stopped responding there. What I am concerned about now is this: Within that same edit where you asserted (twice) that "my brand new edit must stand until consensus to change it is achieved" (appoximate wording), you wikilinked WP:CONSENSUS. (Twice.) But of course, WP:CONSENSUS does not support any such notion. I will WP:AGF by assuming you simply hadn't read it before you cited it, or that you had read it and misinterpreted it very badly... but I have to say that neither of those is anything I'd be very happy to admit about myself. Anyway, how about I change it from "please don't make up rules" to "please be sure you have read and understood relevant WP policy and guidelines, particularly before citing them in defense of your position, and most especially before using rollback." Fair enough? (n.b.: There are a lot more policies and guidelines people will lie to you about besides that one.) Jeh (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Though my account is around two years old, as was already pointed out, I didn't really begin editing until about 3-4 weeks before this occurrence. I don't recall citing WP:CONSENSUS, but if I did so it was because I had skimmed it and was mainly going by the actions of others; I was not yet completely familiar with policy and a polite correction would have been better received. However I appreciate that you have now taken the time to better explain the issue you had with this. This is still the second time you have left a note about this which isn't really necessary, but I do recognise that I misstated policy on this occasion, and you'll find that is the only time I ever have, or ever will. Thanks for the reminder. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well that was a terrific reply. Thank you for your understanding. May I now change to simply "welcome back," you have been a very active editor and very dedicated to quality. Good night. :) Jeh (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Feedback - please help me out

Re. WP:FEED, new system

I think you've probably seen my comments on the talk page, about how we need to restructure the feedback system so that we have one page for each day, we transclude the most recent days on the main page, set up navigation, move the current requests across, add a box at the top showing the 'oldest outstanding requests', etc etc.

This really is desperately needed; the volume of requests now makes for a VERY long page, and archiving is not the best method at all; it can confuse new users, when their feedback 'disappears', etc. With a page-per-day, the links to their feedback would always remain - so we could alert them with a link on their talk page, and it won't matter if they check in 1 day, 1 week, 1 month or 1 year - their feedback will still be there.

I've had a 'demo' of it set up, and got a bit of help with the templates to auto-transclude the most recent days, etc - please look at User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback - please look also at a 'demo' day, User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, and the nav page, User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/navigation.

The demo isn't quite perfect, but to be honest, if we wait until it is, nothing will happen. We need to boldly implement it.

To do that, first of all, we need to clear things.

So, can you please help me by moving any and all feedback into the archive, and tell the users with a note, something like this one.

The move-over to the new method will be much easier if we clear things down.

I'm going to ask others for help, and try to get help with the transclusions stuff too.

Sorry this is a bit of a long message; I think it's important to sort this out, ASAP - and I need help with it.

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  03:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to be doing too much editing at the moment, but I'll try to focus my edits on the feedback page to help out. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Update - This has now happened; there is no need to archive anything, any more. Now there are separate pages for each day, we no longer need to move old requests into a separate archive.

The main WP:FEED page will automatically just show the past few days.

If you can, please check over everything, because I'm sure there are lots of mistakes that need sorting out. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  12:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

WQA for Nineteen Nightmares

I have referred Nineteen Nightmares for personal attacks and incivility at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Pattern_of_Personal_Attacks_by_Nineteen_Nightmares. Since you have been involved in this matter, I believe that it is appropriate for you to be made aware of this matter. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I noticed this since I was watching Nineteen Nightmares' talk page. Your report seems fairly complete so I don't think I really have anything to add which isn't already demonstrated by the user's repeated actions, and given that last time I was involved with this user Morenooso picked a fight with me and I ended up quitting, I think it's best for me to leave this one alone unless I can add something valuable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted you to know - I didn't intend to convey that you should necessarily get involved in it. I certainly have no problem with you sitting this out, especially given the possibility of you not editing any more. You're too valuable here for me to want you to do something that would make you get fed up and leave. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration. Since the individual has since made several additional personal attacks, I added these to the list and also warned the user. He has now received a final warning; it seems the proposition for a NPA noticeboard failed, but I think there is easily enough information on the wikiettiquette report to warrant a ban. I'll add the evidence of me warning him to the list also; this is just getting out of control and to be honest I think he needs to be blocked for a week or so and hopefully he'll learn to respect other editors. These warnings exclude the more gentle reminders I already gave him previously so I think he's more than proven that he's not going to listen and adjust his attitude. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Giftiger wunsch, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Giftiger wunsch/Userboxes/Chronocross-serge. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC) ...Whoops, didn't realise that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Typos

Just to let you know, you don't have to strike typos, you can copy over them and write the correct spelling. Striking is only for when you are changing great portions of a sentence, paragraph, etc. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder; I usually just edit the correction in but for some reason I felt I should strike that one. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :) Glad I could help. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

DJFlem's report

Thanks for the message. I just saw your message now, which was the first time I looked at my Talk Page in the past day or so, so I wasn't aware of the report until your message that it was closed. I've already begun requesting help from members of the Arbitration Committee, with whom I worked with back in April to address that prior policy-violator, since DJFlem's last message to me on my Talk Page prior to his report have made it clear that (unless his behavior changes) that speaking to him is pointless. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Block; Edit history

Just to clarify, I certainly don't have anything against people reviewing whether the bock of indef would have been better at something more than the editor's largest prior block. We routinely indef editors who have been blocked half a dozen times w/indef blocks. Indeed, we block people with first time blocks of three months (just look at the same page our discussion is taking place on). When an editor has been blocked half a dozen times already, and engages still in disruptive conduct, that can be seen as a serious problem. That said -- if the more lenient were to militate for a block between his largest block (one month) and indef, I think that could be an interesting discussion. Three days? Decision to wheel-war made in 21 minutes? Based on input of two editors -- the primary substantive block-specific comment having been manifestly (though understandably) wrong? IMHO that's way out of bounds. As to editors relying on other established respected editors statements of fact, such as whether there were warnings -- that happens all the time. The fact that nobody pointed out your error suggests to me that either they made the same error, or simply relied on your good-faith incorrect statement. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but please direct this discussion to the AN/I. As I said in that discussion, I felt that to prevent what appears to be a mostly good editor (look at his contribution history; the numerous blocks were almost without exception for 3RR, which is a relatively minor offence and does happen from time to time, and were spread over a period of about 4 years, with the last being over a year ago) from being discouraged, immediate action was necessary to overturn the indef block. I didn't specifically suggest the current three day block, but given the history, I believe that should be appropriate. If the behaviour continues immediately afterwards it can be extended, but that has not been the case any other time that I can see, and the purpose of a block is to protect wikipedia from disruption, not to punish editors. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I imagine I could indicate at the AN/I that nobody pointed out your error---which suggests to me at least that either they made the same error (an easy one to make, given the deletions), or simply relied on your good-faith incorrect statement (as the statement of a well-thought-of careful editor). I'll consider, but given the length of that string, am holding off for the moment.

As to the editors' "mostly good editor" comment, quite frankly I find that unconvincing. People didn't even see the three warnings on the most recent day of his activity, which absolutely jump out at you if you are looking for the issue. He is a highly disruptive editor, as evidenced by his block history -- I've edited twice as much, and never been subject to a block that wasn't summarily dismissed as completely inappropriate (one of which led to de-sysop moves, not triggered by me). Three days, coupled with the other indicia of railroading, does raise a distinctive odious smell to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not sure if other editors have made the comment, but when I said he seemed to mostly be a good editor, that was based on looking at his contribution history myself; most of his edits appear to be constructive, and as I pointed out, the blocks were all short because they were relatively minor offenses, almost entirely 3RR issues, with no indication of more serious offenses such as vandalism, personal attacks, etc. I think the fact that his last block was over a year ago, and again relatively minor, makes a longer block inappropriate, and looking at the periodicity of the blocks, it's clear that these short blocks were sufficient to discourage the behaviour for a significant period of time on each occasion, and this is the most important factor per policy. In any case, please direct any further comments to the AN/I discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

drama

thanks for trying to do the best on that article, I didn't want contact you while the ANI and 3RR stuff was going on, but now it seems to be over, thanks. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I acted according to my understanding of the relevant policy, and ended up collapsing it as a compromise based on the recommendations at WP:TALKO and in an attempt to avert an edit war. I'm pleased to see that the intervening administrator supported my original action, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I should be honest and state that I think this whole situation stemmed from an ongoing problem Hkwon and I are having on a few articles, so I may have been a little too eager to see him blocked. On the other hand, I have had my own talk page messages removed for not being relevant in the past and think that despite editors being well meaning, we should all understand that this isn't the place to chat and as such these messages will most likely be removed. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for disclosing that Sennen; I believe your actions (at least in this case) were well intentioned and per policy, and you left an explanatory edit summary on the initial removal of the comment which I thought was helpful. All I can suggest regarding the conflict between Hkwon and yourself is that you should try explaining your viewpoint to him, and if that doesn't work, simply avoid interaction where possible; conflict is an inevitable part of the collaboration process but keeping a positive attitude and maintaining civility is key to conflict resolution. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame, but unfortunately trying to explain a viewpoint just results in long essays from Hkwon, who views any unwillingness to address every single point of the essay as acceptance of his point. To avoid interaction is also hard as we both share interests in Asia, especially Japanese/Korean articles, so we tend to encounter each other. But you're right, a positive attitude and civility both go a long way to making conflicts resolve themselves. Thanks カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your sig

Hi. Maybe I'm the only person bothered by it, but I find that the background color around your sig to be very distracting. It's pulls the eye and makes it difficult for me to read the sections it appears in. Any chance you could remove the background color for white? I'd appreciate any consideration you can give to this, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologise that you are having issues with my signature, but it is no different to many other signatures, it's per policy, and you are the first to have an issue with it. I'm quite fond of it and would rather not change it, sorry. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't recall seeing any signatures with a colored background which are not delimited by a box, so inthat respect your sig is unique in my experience. As for policy:

When customizing your signature, please keep the following in mind: A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users. ...

If you encounter a user whose signature is disruptive or appears to be impersonating another account, it is appropriate to ask that user to consider changing their signature to meet the requirements of this guideline. When making such a request, always be polite, and assume good faith. Do not immediately assume that the user has intentionally selected a disruptive or inappropriate signature. If you are asked to change your signature, please avoid interpreting a polite request as an attack. Since the success of Wikipedia is based on effective teamwork, both parties should work together to find a mutually acceptable solution.

Signature formatting has been the subject of Requests for Comment, and has also resulted in some very heated debates. In one case a user who refused to alter an unsuitable signature was ultimately required to change it by the Arbitration Committee. This is an extreme measure for users who refuse to cooperate with reasonable requests, and should be considered a last resort. When dealing with potentially problematic signatures, simply being polite is often sufficient and can prevent the situation from escalating into a dispute. ...

Appearance and color ...As some users have vision problems, be sparing with color. If you must use different colors in your signature, please ensure that the result will be readable by people with color blindness, defective color vision, and other visual disabilities.

In the light of this information, I would ask you to reconsider your decision in the interest of collegiality and comity. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Sorry but as I've said, I've participated in many discussions and never had a single complaint. I don't feel that the signature is distracting as I've used a nice pale creamy shade in a box limited to the span of the text. Again I'm sorry that you feel this way, but the signature is to policy and I like it, and I've seen far more colourful ones than my own. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

For example, a user who has left a comment on your talk page, User:PopKorn Kat , has a signature which in my opinion is much more difficult to read than my own, and is much more colourful. Mine has good contrast and stands out without being invasive. In any case, I am going to have to respectfully decline the request to change my signature, but thanks for being so civil in raising the concern. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, WP:Other stuff exists is, of course, not a really good platform to stand on, and I guess that I'm disagreeing with your assertion that the sig is not "invasive", since I do find it distracting.

No problem with being polite, it's obviously not an earth-shattering issue, but it is a problem for me, albeit a minor one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)#

(edit conflict)I honestly don't see the issue, and as far as I'm aware no one else has had an issue. Perhaps it is an issue with your monitor's colour rendering; for me it is displayed as a nice creamy colour which marks out the extent of the signature nicely while not conflicting with the off-white background. As far as I'm aware, this is also how it appears to everyone or mostly everyone else. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, I see the background as orangey, not at all creamy.

Regarding PopKorn Kat's sig -- yes it is annoying, but only because I can't read the name, which I can see by simply hovering the cursor over the link. In your case, the contrast is, if anything, too high. I'm not sure if it's just the colors, or the bolding, or the size of the text, or the color not being enclosed in a box, but I don't experience with other colored sigs the eye-pull that yours has. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm that's certainly strange; I don't know if you're familiar with hexadecimal RGB colour codes, but the colour is #FFFFC0 (or RGB[255,255,192]), which is a very faint yellow. It is similar to the background colour of some notice templates, such as the ones in my talk page's edit notice, but slightly paler and more yellow. I think this may be an issue with your monitor if you're seeing it as orange. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not "orange" but more "orangey" than "creamy". I see #FFFFCC, for instance, as "creamy" Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

#FFFFC0 #FFFFCC. There's only 13 points of difference in the blue value between them; I have difficulty distinguishing these two colours, one is simply very marginally paler than the other. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

For whatever reason I do see a difference betweem them. I'm not sure if changing to CC would make any difference in my "distraction factor", but if you see negliable difference between them, would you mind trying CC for a while? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Although now that I look again at the two samples in your last comment, neither of those backgrounds when used with plain black unbolded text would be enough to be distracting, so in all probability it's the colors and boldness of the name itself which are actually the problem. Have you ever tried with the same colors but with the text not bolded? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of helping you with this problem, I've changed the background colour as you suggested. I feel that the signature's entire look will be changed for the worse if I remove the bold username though, so I won't be doing that, sorry. If the change in background colour gets aggravating I may change it back, but I'll try the new colour per your suggestion as the two colours did seem very similar to me. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I do appreciate your giving that a try, but, as I suggested in my last comment, it turns out that the background is not what's causing the problem I'm perceiving, as the effect is the same. I'm afraid that the distractive quality has to do with the color and bolding of the text. The background color may be contributing as well, but it's not the major factor I initially thought it was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

By way of comparison, look at the sig of Fences&Windows on this AN/I section to which you also contributed. While both sigs have similar text colors and background, F&W's stands out as distinctive, but is not at all visually distracting. When I read a section to which F&W has contributed, my eye is not at all pulled to his or her sig to the detriment of the text I'm trying to read, which is not, I'm afraid, the case with your sig, which invariably calls undue attention to itself. It would be really helpful if you were to able to bring yourself to try, say, unbolding the text to see what happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but as I said, I'm fond of my signature and don't wish to change it, especially as no one else seems to share your concerns. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

Fences&Windows

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] (your revised sig, with background FFFFCC)

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] (same, unbolded)

The bolding is clearly the primary culprit here, causing the sig to be distracting to the eye. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, we really don't know if no one shares my concerns, what we know is that no one's expressed any concerns to you. I guess I'll have to ask around. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Image in a new article

Please don't just delete stuff while I'm working on getting the display of pictures correct. Its rude and annoying.

pschemp | talk 08:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I indicated my reason for removal the image in edit summaries. No matter what dimensions you use for that image, it's not going to be helpful to the article (I tried putting it to 300px, a reasonable width, and it just looked like a random-pixel banner) and will seriously disrupt the article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Answer

I have noticed your warning and I will not take offence. I am editing it right now and adding sources.--ChildStarFanatic (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope you get it sorted out; providing it is reliably sourced within ten days, the BLP-PROD can be removed, so it should provide adequate time to source the article. Please make sure that you can demonstrate that the article meets the criteria for inclusion however; specifically this link might be helpful. If you can't demonstrate reliability, the article may end up being nominated for deletion later on. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Done

You can now view the Tyrel Jackson Williams page and hopefully remove the BLP-PROD.--ChildStarFanatic (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your sig (redux)

As I mentioned at the end of our conversation, which you have now archived, I was going to ask around to see if anyone else was bothered by your sig. To that end, I've posted an inquiry at AN/I here, referencing our discussion. I'm interested to see if I'm just the odd man out, or if others are distracted by it as well, and I look forward to any comments you should want to make there. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

General comments

Giftiger, just wanted to let you know that I posted a humorous (I hope) support of your sig.

I also understand you not wanting to be involved in the other, and would not ask you to do anything that you are not comfortable with doing. It certainly does not change the respect I have for you, nor the fact that I like you being here on Wiki. We'll hopefully collaborate on something else further down the road. In the meantime, as the Germans would say: Sie haben eine schöne dunkle Bier, bitte! (Please have a nice dark beer). Regards, GregJackP (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, though it should really be "Haben Sie bitte ein schönes dunkeles Bier" :p The mess with the sockpuppet army and the nasty comments by Nineteen Nightmares, compounded with the rather uncivil comments by Sarah was all starting to come together to get annoying so I've decided to withdraw from the whole thing before it draws me into another argument, but I hope to collaborate with you and other editors from this project at some point in the future. Thanks again. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL, yeah my German is pretty much limited to ordering another dunkles Bier and saying I'm sorry, I don't speak German. GregJackP (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough ^_^ GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your Sig

Hey There....did a little tinkering did your sig in the style of mine (an all-in-one). First, copy the below mess....

<small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #0060A0;padding:1px;background:#FFFFC0">[[User:Giftiger wunsch|<span style="color:#FF0000;"><font face="Verdana">'''GiftigerWunsch'''</span>]] • [[User talk:Giftiger wunsch|<span style="color:Black;White;">Talk</span>]] • {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTTIME}}, {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)</small><noinclude>

....and put it on User:Giftiger wunsch/Sig and save, then go to My Preferences at the top of the page, find the signature section and put {{subst:User:Giftiger wunsch/Sig}} there. You will only need to sign with 3 tidles ~~~ after doing this. You can see the finished product here. Just an idea, not something you HAVE to do. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought. I wasn't aware it was acceptable to use templates in sigs; the guidance on the preferences page seems to suggest otherwise. I was struggling to condense my sig enough to place an id marker in it so that others may remove the background colour from their view if they decide to. I don't think it's necessary to include the date manually since it's only one tilde difference and it gives me the option to remove it by using three tildes, but it's good to know how this is done (and of course the benefit is I could change the font, format etc. of the timestamp in my signature, so thanks for the idea, I may consider that in future. If I do change my sig I'll probably change it to something closer to my current one since I find yours quite neat but I am also quite fond of my own. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't do anything that will get you in trouble. I actually had mine done by an admin who said it was OK, but I don't want to get you in trouble. Just something I threw together. I think we are all quite fond of what we put together on our own :) I love mine, just different. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the only reason I'm changing my signature is to help another user, I think I'll be bold and use a substed template as you suggested, to fit in an id parameter. I'll mention this on the AN/I, where sysops will be able to tell me if I need to revert it. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie...I will also mention I got that from an admin so I will know what to do as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You asked at ANI if it was OK to subst your sig from a userspace template. It is OK (albeit discouraged), but you have to make sure it stays below 255 characters - which I believe is the reason you want to subst it in the first place - so back to square one. =) –xeno^talk 19:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's now something like 265 characters; is this not an acceptable margin of error in order to improve it for other editors per WP:IAR? I have no problem to changing it back to what it was before, but that will make it more difficult for other users and I would like to do what I can to help them out, as long as it doesn't interfere with the appearance of the signature for everyone. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nesting fonts for fun and profit! [1]. –xeno^talk 19:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I had actually briefly considered that earlier, but didn't think it'd free up enough space. Apparently I should have tried it first. Thanks for making the change xeno. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I also shortened the id to "gw_sig" I suppose that could be lengthed to "gw_sig_box", though. –xeno^talk 19:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed, and that's fine. Before this change, I literally had 4 characters spare so I could get as far as "id=" but not even give it a single, unquoted character id. I was considering changing #0000FF to red but that makes me feel dirty and vague. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

ha ! =] –xeno^talk 19:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC) by the way, your sig can be pasted back into prefs now... would prevent users from doing vandalism to your sig and you not noticing

A step ahead of your there; I was about to show you a diff where I filed the signature under U1 but it was deleted in record time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I just noticed and was coming to erase my P.S. =) The span trick works, by the way. –xeno^talk 19:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's working for me as well. I thank you for going out of your way to accomodate me, and appreciate it very much that you kept things on an even keel throughout. Your actions speak volumes about your character. Please, in the unlikely event that there's anything I can do for you in the future, feel free to call on me -- I certainly "owe you one". Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• You find this thread of related interest. –xeno^talk 14:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wieso?

Warum wünschen Sie für was giftiges? Sca (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Das tu ich nicht, mein Name soll bedeuten etwas, dafür man wünscht, aber man bekommt stattdessen etwas böses, daran er nicht gedacht hatte. Also ist der Wunsch giftig. Es ist aber sowieso nur mein Online-Benutzername :p "The Monkey's Paw" ist auch ähnlich dazu, vielleicht kennen Sie diesen Text. Vielen Dank für den Notiz, und Entschuldigung, dass mein Deutsch nicht ganz perfekt ist. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Viel besser als meinen! Alles gute! Sca (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: In retrospect, I think the term giftiger Wunsch applies to my 2nd marriage. Sca (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well played ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Willst du was darüber zuhören? Wieviel Zeit has du? It was love at first sight ... 8-) Sca (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW

I know that I've made some direct statements as to how some people might have been misled by a statement you made. But I hope I did clarify there that I completely presumed the mistake in the statement was inadvertent. Your willingness to continue to consider your position as the facts become more clear, and more information comes to light, is heartening, and I applaud you for it. As you know, some people dig their heels in when they've made a statement, and seek to support it at any cost, no matter whant the new information. They tend, of course, to be insecure people. I commend you for being the opposite. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment; I try to ensure that I am fair in my judgements, and simply "digging in my heels" with only part of the evidence being considered is clearly not how to do this. I still believe that the original speedy replacement of the block was important to prevent the user becoming discouraged from editing constructively, but in light of more recent evidence (especially the "founder of wikipedia" statements and his apparent immediate return to confrontation) it seems unlikely that the 72-hour block was sufficient. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, I commend you. We need more just like you. As you know even from that thread, I'm a bit concerned that editors who edit with apparent agendas can serve to disrupt consensusp-built decision-making that is dependent upon good faith discussion and !voting. No better way to evidence good faith, I think, than doing precisely what you did. And no more obvious way to evidence bad faith that to do the opposite. I'm thrilled that you are one of the cowboys with white hats, and hope that none of my irritation at the thread was misinterpreted as personal criticism. As to the substantive issue still before us, you know I am in agreement with you. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, as you've now updated your views at the bottom of the ANI, I wonder if it might perhaps make sense for you to go through your earlier comments and cross out any that are no longer current? Otherwise, it might be confusing to some new readers, especially given the size of the thread. This is, for example, the approach we commonly take at AfDs and the like, when our views morph. As a kindness to other editors who will attempt to read the thread. Your call -- just a thought.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing that, but I think everything I still agree with everything I've said, so no need to cross anything out. In any case, whoever closes this is going to need to carefully read the comments and act accordingly, so I don't think crossing out my older comments is going to be much help. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. I had thought that some of your comments were no longer the way your feel (as in length of block), but perhaps I was wrong. Actually, as I've now down-sized from indef to three months, I should look at my comments as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• I just reviewed my own comment. Amazingly, I had nothing to cross out in this regard. As I never said I suggest he be blocked indef (though I did say I felt I could argue for it). The only timeframe I ever propose is three months.

I saw you made some cross-outs (tx), but think you may have missed (at least?) one -- which jumped out at me, as one that may have escaped your attention. That's where you write "Given the circumstances and involvement of the only editor who is opposing the decision to reduce the block, as well as the clear support for the reduction, I believe this can now be closed per WP:SNOWBALL. Epeefleche is clearly adamant in defending the indefinite block, but given that he was heavily involved in the most recent incident and the only argument he's provided is that it was reduced after a short consensus discussion, I think the much clearer, not now longer consensus discussion in favour of the reduction is evidence enough that his reasons for opposing the reduction are not per policy". You struck through the word Agree that preceded that, but not the text at all. You might have wanted to strike out some or all of that, if it does not match your later/current view. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I think that's fine now; I crossed out the "agree" and a large discussion followed that comment, so I think it's clear that WP:SNOW was no longer appropriate. I think the thing to do now is simply wait a see if a 3-month block gets any more support and how the discussion is closed by the reviewing admin. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to say goodbye

I'm leaving - not one admin has the cajones to stand up to Sarah, so I have better things to do with my time. I really enjoyed working with you. GregJackP Boomer! 06:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't let this be a reason to leave; while Sarah was pretty abrasive, she hasn't really done anything in serious violation of policy, so I'm not really sure what you want other admins to do about it. Your best bet is to just avoid further contact with her, it's working pretty well for me. Sorry to hear that you're leaving, and I hope you'll be back fairly soon. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus recall

FYI, you may reinsert your vote at this page as the archiving was grossly inappropriate and has been reverted by another admin. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I went ahead and reinserted your vote. If you've changed your mind please feel free to revert me, and you may wish to check in anyway in case someone else reverts me. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and for reinserting my vote for me, as I have been away from the computer all morning. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not unusual.

They don't usually start hollering on AN/I, though. Not hard to see it's the same person, though. Good to see I still have the speed; who needs Huggle? HalfShadow 21:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd do what I always do. Quickly. HalfShadow 21:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I found twinkle wouldn't revert properly, I had to just delete the section manually. The signing by SineBot interfered with rollback / undo, and twinkle's [restore this revision] failed for some reason. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it just takes the work out of it; no work, no fun. May as well let Cluebot do it, considering. HalfShadow 21:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I prefer a less... masochistic approach. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, when you're as fast as I am, it's not effort. Hell, I used to able to beat Cluebot on a good day. HalfShadow 21:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Meh, always good to have tools to make it faster. Though I wasn't too pleased the time I accidentally hit 'rollback' on my watchlist and reverted about 6 edits from AIV. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Bible verses

Following up on the noticeboard discussion, I think the best thing to do is start a new discussion on what the community thinks is best to do with pages like this. I've started a page at Wikipedia:Bible verses/2010. It's been five years since any of this was discussed at all. Most of the people from back then are gone, and the community and its standards have also changed. Hopefully a fresh discussion can result in a resolution everyone will be happy with, and it'd be great to have your participation. - SimonP (talk) 06:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Message re: personal attack page

I was doing just fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightistight (talk • contribs) 08:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of humour is considered disruptive, and name and content of the article you created suggested a personal attack to disparage a village, which is why I listed it for speedy deletion as a personal attack. I for one didn't find it particularly amusing, and while you're welcome to edit constructively, creating this sort of material is a good way to get blocked pretty quickly. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Lightistight (talk · contribs) indef blocked. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge and redirect

Just a note re: [2] - if content is merged the redirect cannot be deleted because it creates licensing issues. The only other option, if an article title is undesirable, is to move then merge and redirect, thus preserving the history of the merged content. CIreland (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I wasn't aware of this. I'll re-word my !vote on the AfD accordingly. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

GregJackP SPI

Please look at my last comment and that of the CU Clerk - I have one account not disclosed for real world issues. The clerk noted that the area that account was used for involved "crazy/scarey" people. I can't afford bodyguards like some involved can, and if I disclosed the other account, I would be at serious risk. All I'm asking is that you consider that factor, especially since the clerk clarified that the other accounts were not related to me. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 21:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Already struck out the comment based on Gordon's further clarification. Good luck in the SPI, and I hope you put these recent problems behind you and return to editing constructively as you mainly seem to have done before this recent "Administrator abuse" nonsense. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Glasgow Rosses

I had a read of it and noticed that it said the club was formed because Glasgow Celtic F.C. were in financial trouble, in 1994, I think. Not only is it unlikely that one of the two major Scottish teams would be as bad off as the Glasgow Rosses article said, but there was there was nothing in the Celtic article indicating that problem. Also there was no Google listing except Wikipedia for Glasgow Rosses and nothing in Scottish Premier League or any of the lower divisions. I checked them before I deleted it as an hoax based on Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I figured if I was wrong then it's been a long time since I was dragged to ANI, and I figure I could survive the trip. By the way in a complete absence of good faith it appears to me that the editor is making small edits to become autoconfirmed. Cheers. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

One other thing. The first idea I had that it was a hoax, is that it is almost impossible for a team to be playing at that level, the SPL, and not have an article already. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; I'll remember that if it pops up on my watchlist again in future. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It seems to be a day for soccer related nonsense articles. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Vuvuzela Edit Summary

Hey, in regards to your edit summary here, there is no need to apologise . It's good to have someone else checking the article ... I wasn't sure if it was the "right" change. Thanks for your help. Cheers,  Davtra  ^(talk) 03:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

AGF

Hi. You are likely well aware of this, but I was reminded when I saw your comment that AGF says: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donny Long (2nd nomination)

Bringing this here since that article is not the place for this. The disparaging remarks[3] I referred to were A.) suggesting that I was a sock master and B.) that there was something wrong with my vote or User:Lustralaustrals vote. I went and looked at his contribs and he seems to be all over the place and not an SPA. As for myself, I've been here for 2.5 years now and I know my edits range pretty far and wide subject wise. I saw the AFD from reading thru stuff on ANI, went and looked and decided to add my vote. I copy and pasted his response because it was short, succint and said exactly what I wanted to say. You were the one not AGFing. All I ask is next time, do a little research before you hit the keys and suggest someone is a Sock master or SPA. Or ask me about it on my talk page before posting a remark that implies that I am guilty of some impropriety. As for the profanity in my response[4], sorry about that(I've now struck it out), but you get called a Sock and see if your hackles dont raise a bit. Regards, Heiro 17:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't trying to suggest you were a sock, it actually seemed more like meatpuppetry for me. I rephrased my statement as admittedly it was a little provocative. While there's nothing wrong with sharing the views of another contributor, I thought I'd point out that it does look quite suspicious when two comments are literally identical, and one of the contributors have barely more than 50 edits; I wouldn't have been even slightly concerned if the reason in your !vote was simply "per Lustralaustral", for example. That said, I apologise if you misunderstood my intention, and I certainly don't see a reason to launch an SPI over a single incident which I could well be misinterpreting; I just felt it best to bring it to the attention of other contributors, and the closing admin, that a word-for-word copy of the comment in this situation may have been slightly fishy. In any case, I've done that and that's all I intend to do, so if there is no connection between you and this user then that's fine, you're entitled to your views. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Rite on. No connection between us, first time I've ever even run across them. And judging from their contribs the only time I'm likely to ever again is at a noticeboard or if we both happen to post to a random AFD again. Sorry about the profanity, willing to let this all be water under the bridge if you are, happy editing, Heiro 19:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I could have approached the situation better so no hard feelings here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What I fear has happened is that this person has demonstrated that if you are enough of an abusive, slanderous, vulgarly obscene jerk, and sufficiently vicious in your ignorantly vituperative abuse of Wikipedia and all Wikipedians, you can manipulate your coverage in Wikipedia. Is this the lesson we want to teach all controversial subjects? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm not happy with some of the arguments some editors made on the AfD, claiming that we should simply delete the article because he was being a pain; however I did eventually change my mind from keep to delete due to a policy-based argument presented by another user. I have to admit it leaves a sour taste in my mouth that policy ended up supporting deletion, but I can sleep soundly knowing that I supported its deletion because of lack of worth as an article, not because the individual saw fit to attempt to bully us. Ultimately I'm at least happy the article was salted, because I firmly believe that Mr. Long's main motive here was to recreate the article as he sees fit, and I doubt we've seen the last of him (he's already continued his abuse despite the article's deletion). It seems likely that a community ban is going to be levied against him, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

reverting my edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

FYI That is two reverts you have there. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And one is a clear BLP violation, which is immune to the 3RR: the reference does not in any way support the opinion that she was high at the time of the argument. Add a source which does support that or I will continue to revert it as a BLP vio. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

She went into rehab and was addicted to drugs, she herself admits it in the citation and says she was in a state. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please dont post those talkback templates on my talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The reference says she had a drug problem, not that she was high at the time. You can't say she was "clearly" high at the time without very good evidence to that effect (and you can't even imply it if you haven't got a source stating that she was). In addition, the way you phrased it was not neutral and suggested that being on drugs caused the argument, which is speculation and a POV. I have no problem with this being mentioned provided it is well sourced and written neutrally. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

She herself admits she was off her trolly and went directly to rehab for months after the fall out, I have seen the video. Don't just revert all my edits use discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could say what I feel to you but policy restricts me. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am discussing this with you now; BLP policy states that unreferenced or poorly referenced contentious material should be immediately removed, however. If you can reliably source that, I have no issue with the information and will only edit it to ensure neutrality. If you're going to add that to the section there though, it needs better explanation: I'm sure you will agree that saying "she accused him of disrespecting her but she was obviously on drugs at the time anyway" is not per WP:NPOV and is not a fair assessment of the situation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And in light of that comment, I will take this to the BLP noticeboard. Do not leave me any further messages here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re: Duke23

I left it tagged as G3 because of [[5]], all his reverts until the last 2 were merely blanking the page again. Now he is just adding random nonsense. Mauler90 _talk 06:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I was considering G3 as well, but felt A1 was easier to demonstrate; in any case, either would have been better than readding G7 if he kept reverting that addition, since G7 essentially claims that he asked for the page to be deleted, and reverting your edits adding it suggests otherwise. Either way the page is gone now, so that's settled. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops I actually meant G7 in the first post! Although G3 did apply as well. Anyways its been deleted twice now for G7 so I wouldn't be surprised to see it again. Although he has been reported to AIV so we'll see. Cheers! Mauler90 _talk 06:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we can be fairly confident it's not going to be seen again at this point; the name has been salted (and the user probably blocked, I didn't check their username and the page is gone so I can't find out now). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

uploading image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariveshvatsyayan.JPG

i want to upload this file on wikipage of mr parivesh vatsyayan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariveshvatsyayan.JPG

Please suggest me how can i contribute it.

Abhishek Verma India Abhishek Verma 07:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That file isn't actually an image; to upload an image, you need to visit Special:Upload. Before you do that, however, you need to make sure that the image is either released into the public domain, or under a license compatible with its use on wikipedia: you can find more details on this at WP:Image use policy. Let me know if you have any further questions. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Stefan Nerezov

es I will but i don't have time now :)--Avidius (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, wikipedia is not on a deadline; just add a couple of references when you get chance. If I get time I'll look for a couple myself. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you but I doubt you will find much even in Bulgarian sources are scarce.--Avidius (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not a good sign; to meet the criteria for inclusion, articles need to be notable, and they need to demonstrate this with references in reliable sources. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Try these:

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

...that'll do the job pretty well. Thanks Greg. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with Resistance to Change

please help me to improve the article and guide me which sector should be improved in order make updated better one.:)--AhmadJawad (talk) 12:53 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Before attempting to create an article, I would recommend that you read WP:YFA, which will give you some advice on what is appropriate for a wikipedia article. Of particular use also, would be wikipedia's neutrality policy and the general notability guideline for inclusion. My main concern is that the article you have created appears to be a "how to" and is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia such as wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

kindly update the necessary changes as per the criteria, i will careful in the next articles..:)--AhmadJawad (talk) 13:02 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not as simple as updating the article; the article does not seem to be a topic suitable for inclusion in wikipedia, so I am filing for its deletion. If you agree that it is not encyclopaedic and would like to readt he guidelines first before attempting to make another article, you may simply blank the page and it can be speedily deleted since you are the only author of any substantial content. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Notifying user of username discussion

Hi! When you put someone's username up for discussion at WP:RFCN, like you did with User:LikDik, please remember to notify the user of the discussion so that they can join and give their own views. You can do this using the {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}} template. Thanks! Theis101 (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

Gifftiger - Just wanted to let you know I am now unblocked and staying away from any re-creation of the old Don Martin or La Frontera pages, and planing to redeem my editor status. Just wanted to say hi and to apologize for all the past aggravations I caused. Best regards, Dmartinaus • Talk 16:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries; as long as you refrain from socking and keep your edits constructives, you'll hear no complaints from me. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

One account and one account only is my rule! Dmartinaus • Talk 05:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Request for Medition Page

Hi. This is Don Martin. I wonder if you would mind blanking this "request for mediation" page re the short-lived Don Martin (public affairs) article, entitled Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Don Martin (Austin, Texas). As you know, the request for mediation was apparently inappropriately requested to begin with, and was immediately rejected. In addition the [[Don Martin (public affairs) page was deleted as well and is not going to be re-created by me. However this Wikipedia reference comes up in a Google search of my name, and it comes up on the first page. Clicking on it takes the reader to a fairly arcane and uninteresting list votes against mediation for a page which no longer exists. I beleive you were the primary admin involved in this issue at the time. I would be most appreciative. Dmartinaus • Talk 22:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so I don't have the authority to blank the page, but in any case there is no sensitive information involved so I do not believe this qualifies for courtesy blanking. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate the thoughts. I think I am requesting this in the correct manner (not as a courtesy deletion) below. I am adding this notice to your page out of courtesy, as suggested, in case you want to comment one way or another. Hopefully it is a request to remove non-controversial material. Thanks. Dmartinaus • Talk 01:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I've left you a couple of queries on the page :) ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 07:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I was busy making an elaborate response to one of Elen's comments on WT:Pedophilia but would have seen the comments on AN/I when I was done anyway, I check back there a lot. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Link

That link worked fine because it proves there is no cabal. – B.hotep •talk• 21:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps; unfortunately WP:CABAL exists though, so perhaps not. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Except, it's like Fight Club. You don't talk about it. Except, in this case I really don't, because to me it doesn't exist. – B.hotep •talk• 22:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I've heard a couple of complaints about there being a secret group of admins determined to undermine consensus (such as the now-notorious "Administrator abuse on wikipedia" article), but I've interacted with and agreed with far too many well-reasoned admins to put any stock in this theory, compared to a single admin who I've had issues with in the past. Admins are approved by the community, so really saying that admins are corrupt is to say that the whole community is corrupt and that wikipedia is doomed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Scala (clothing)

I'm not wasting my time improving it either way- it's not my content. I simply moved the content because it didn't belong on the dab page. If it gets deleted, it gets deleted. Ubcule (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine; the article was deleted as blatant advertising, anyway. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)