User talk:Ricky81682/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

October 2008

In case you didn't know...

The saga continues. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Lav90

Hi Ricky. User:Lav90, whom you blocked a few days ago for sock puppetry (among other things), seems to have resumed editing as 122.108.211.141. What's the process from here? MvjsTalking 07:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Lav90/Tasos90 is now back as Taz300zx (talk · contribs) and reverting edits back to his preferred version. Regards. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 03:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Garolou

ive got to tell you that i dont know what you think of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garolou

but i think it needs to be deleted. it looks like junk. it looks like garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayhawk of Justice (talk • contribs) 00:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

thank you Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Schuym1 vs. Imnotacoolguy

An outsider's view

• Per this diff... where I could find the history but not the real-time page to add my 2 cents. I’ll be the first to admit that young Schuym1 has short fuse, and is impatient to the nth degre... but without actually adopting him, I’ve made him my own secret project... hoping to help him learn patience as he works and plays with others. And you have likely realized, he has little patience. For him, everything has to happen NOW. This works to his disadvatage now that he is trying to work within the slower and overloaded moving gears of an Administrator’s world. At every step, he has been asked for diffs. Now he either does not comprehend what is being requested, or he simply has no patience to “search”, “copy” and “prepare” his case, expecting Administration to have a magic all-seeing eye. However, I kinda like the little sprout, and had the patience to research his complaints and bring them to you in a organized, albeit lengthy manner. He did not ask this of me... he did not “lobby’... but here is my own research of the apparent incivility and stalkings:
• SPA IP 98.21.185.149 has followed Schuym1 and attacked both he and his edits, diff01, diff02, and diff03.
• SPA User:Kimbermls has performed only ONE edit ever, diff, undoing Schuym1's work on an article.
• Interesting and that both of these SPAs in undermining Schuym1's work, came together diff at Run (novel).
• Further, SPA IP 71.101.85.164 is apparently stalking Schuym1 and has only edited in places where he has edited, and no place else per diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6, and diff7. This is too much to be mere coincidence.
• These all began after Schuym1 crossed paths with SPA account Imnotacoolguy who, ever since his account was created, has been stalking Schuym1 edits, reversing his edits, making flawed AfD nominations of his articles, all this being far more than mere coincidence. It began on October 19 when Schuym1 disagreed with reasons for a "keep" vote an an AfD diff.
• What can only percieved as a retaliation is Imnotacoolguy's then nomination of one of Schuym1's own articles for deletion on October 23 with the bitey phrase "Article/Stub reads like an advertisment. As do most of this users Articles... diff1. He then belittles Schuym1's comments diff2, diff3.
• Another attack on one of Schuym1's articles was then made by Imnotacoolguy using a flawed AfD for Run (novel) diff, with flawed arguments toward Schuym1's understanding of guideline diff, diff.
• Further proof of Imnotacoolguy's stalking and incivil behavior is his comment at Schuym1's editor review, again belittling Schuym1's articles and Schuym1's ability as an editor diff.
• Then on October 24 Imnotacoolguy undid Schuym1's work at Cupcake Brown with only a flat and bitey statement diff, but no discussion, on the article’s talk page. Schuym1 had reverted the vandalism of SPA IP 98.21.185.149 diff and Imnotacoolguy undid Schuym1's reversion diff.
• In the meanwhile, Imnotacoolguy and Schuym1 had had discourse on Schuym1's talk page. Again Imnotacoolguy belittled Schuym1's articles and abilities in a most bitey manner diff. Schuym1 respond on Imnotacoolguy's talk page, showing anger at his own articles diff, but no curse directed at Imnotacoolguy. Imnotacoolguy responds as if Schuym1 had cursed directly at him diff. Schuym1 let Imnotacoolguy know he suspected him of using an anonymous IP to make a VERY personal attack diff. Schuym1 also let him know he'd have no problem with an article being nominated if the nom does a fair search per WP:ATD before nomming diff. Then Schuym1 called him on his stalking diff. Schuym1 then points out that he is tired of dealing with the stalking diff, and that if Imnotacoolguy continued baiting Schuym1, he would report him at ANI diffdiff.
• This one SPA Imnotacoolguy and others (can an anonymous SPA IP be considered a meatpuppet?) have worked in concert to attempt driving Schuym1 off of Wiki. Certainily the checkuser request was premature, but this harrassment really should stop, as its interferring with Schuym1's ability to contribute to Wikipedia. Thank you. An observer, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the response. I told the kid to go to Wikialert when advised, rather than ANI. I also advised hm to list the diffs and make it easier for overworked Admins... and he does not have the patience. Sigh. Kids. Whattaya gonna do? I suspect he may one day become a verydecent editor. But he has his own problems with bitiness he needs to curb. With your leave, I will be archiing the discussions on my talk page. I'd rather he not come across your note, follow it back here, and get all fired up again. Again... thank you. I sympathyze with your ongoing headaches. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I agree that there are youngsters who are terrific aditors and Admins... just as there are oldsters who act like youngsters. I will continue trying to be a moderating voice for this young Padawan... but I will archive the conversations so there is no further fuel for his fire. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

All I had to do was view the edit history. I'm not angry anymore anyways. Schuym1 (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Schuym1 (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Why

I'm trying to figure out who put a deletion tag on my user page and why its there in the first place..I cant clear it out and there is no shown change in my history log so if you could take a look at it that would be greatly appreciated...thx in advance--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration

Requests for arbitration has been made on the Arjun MBT page[1].Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Ricky81682. You have new messages at Mvjs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Move mistakes

Hi there. You mistakenly moved several of the the "1. deild 19XX" season articles to "Faroe Islands Premier League Football 19XX", even though the league was indeed called 1. deild until 2004. If you're going to make mass moves in future, please ensure that you're certain that you are moving them to the right titles. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deadminship/Several - 30 October 2008

Thought it was fair to let you know about this. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 17:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Tasos90/Lav90/Name of the week

After having his unblocking request denied and his IP block expiring, he's back edit warring on Brisbane. This is the IP he is using, same as before. MvjsTalking 22:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As the block has expired, he's back edit warring with that IP. MvjsTalking 11:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Arjun MBT

A new edit request for the Summer 2006 Arjun MBT page has been added. Expecting a reply or correction of the same in the Summer 2006 section.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

IFD Process

If you have the time, could you please stop by and let me know what you think on my proposal. Thank you for your time, MatthewYeager 07:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Dianne Wilkerson - Removal of blog as reference

I agree.

I went to the site and found scans of the recent complaints against her. Are those reliable or tainted due to the source? Should the scans be placed in her article?

I'm new so I don't know.

Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubikslens (talk • contribs) 06:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:USER

Wikipedia is so inconsistent.  :) You might be interested in this MfD for a talkpage of a different user: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Racecarguy360. --Elonka 06:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Lav90/Tasos90

Hi Ricky. Lav90/Tasos90 is currently actively warring with 122.108.211.141 and Clare94 and has been given numerous warnings to stop (through edit summaries and a discussion on my talk page) and request unblocking on his original user account. He's not assuming good faith at all. Could you take appropriate action? Thanks! MvjsTalking 09:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, Clare94 has been blocked by Mattinbgn. Thanks anyway. MvjsTalking 09:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As per your recommendation

The anon is back, and more fin than ever. In an AN/I [inistrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#.28groan.29_Dispute_getting_nasty... in July], you suggested we range-block the IP anon if the problems continued. Well, for the past four months, they have been coming and going, and the person is most definitely back, and more fun than ev-ar. I've also notified William M Connolly on his user talk page. As you asked to be kept informed, please feel free to check it out. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Charles Roach

You wrote "There has to better press than this out there." There isn't. That is why I put Citizens for a Canadian Republic up for deletion. I have added a response to Talk:Charles Roach. The group is not significant in Canadian politics or media (just a few newspaper articles and brief mentions here and there, no serious analysis or anything), but if it is considered significant enough to include in WP, then we should be able to use blog posts from members of its own executive committee. An exception has to be made, otherwise its pointless because there's no reliable 3rd-party sources regarding the group or its internal problems. Only the words of its own members. Laval (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Good faith mistakes

I am having list of your good faith mistakes connected with my edits. Can you please stop with that ?

On other side if checkuser report that somebody is likely puppet of banned user is not good then you can start unblocking of many Balkan related banned users (puppets ?) like for example user Guivon [2].

You are administrator and after only 2-3 months of Balkan "discussions" you have started to block users. Users which are not administrators if they are having discussion with multiple newly created account can only ask checkuser check.--Rjecina (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I am giving you 1 point. One thing is to speak about somebody who is likely puppet and another thing is when he is 100 % puppet (I am speaking about checkuser reports)--Rjecina (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:ImNotObama discussion on ANI

Hi. Thanks for your very reasonable comments on the ANI page. I couldn't agree with you more. The thing is, the question I posed was not answered. I don't think this user should be blocked based on association only. This is a very poor wiki policy if it is indeed one. I think the user should be unblocked but supervised due to the reasonable suspicion. We can't have innocent users being blocked like this without proper evidence, can we? --Rebroad (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ramu50

Hi Ricky81682, recently Ramu50 had made several repeated unconstructive edits without gathering consensus first at several templates and articles such as Template:Microsoft Azure Services Platform and Template:Windows Live. Been following several of his edits in the past day and most of them seemed to be unconstructive. I've seen Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive486#Ramu50_yet_again and realise that he is a repeated offender. Would just like to let you know so that some action can be done. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina

Hi, as part of looking at a CU case I had reason to examine this history. I sympathise with your frustration but you might want to dial back a bit and try to be more collegial. Don't let things get you so frustrated that you lose your temper or speak more harshly than is necessary. Hope that advice is helpful. I did comment on the case. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:TheObservatory2005e.jpg

Thanks for the notice (How did you happen to run across that image?)... I've written the band to see if they can supply a replacement free image. I'd appreciate some forebearance on deletion to see if a license is forthcoming. If not, it's not the end of the world if it gets deleted. Our policies about images have tightened somewhat since I found that image in 2006 and uploaded it. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm always glad when someone isn't incensed at a notification. I found it while cleaning the always goofy Category:Publicity photographs with missing fair-use rationale. You find lots of interesting images that way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(Refactored from User_talk:Lar per my policy) Oh good, I thought maybe you were following me around because I cautioned you. (it happens...) Fingers crossed that I get a reply from the band. ++Lar: t/c 17:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, I've heard back from an Observatory member, they're looking into who exactly owns the license and if it can be augmented, and/or if there is another image that could be freely licensed instead. I've sent them some explanatory material on how exactly to proceed and we shall see. I have OTRS access and suggested that the ticket be routed to me to handle. I will put the same note on the image. Note that the fact that something is pending is no reason not to delete, we can always undelete later, but it's good to know. ++Lar: t/c 18:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Inter-Services Intelligence and User:Mercenary2k

Given that he's just deleted all commentary from his talk page regarding this page and all warnings he's received from admins and other users, I doubt he'll be joining us on the talk page of the article ... Just wouldn't want you holding your breath. ;) CSHunt68 (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Anything else to contribute at WP:ANI? [3] There is just no way that Mercenary2k is going to come to the table at this stage. Further actions need to be taken.CSHunt68 (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This may be of interest to you

You may recognize the participants at Wikipedia:ANI#Thumperward_constant_personal_attacks. Pcap ping 13:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Turnkeydeftly2.jpg

Image:Turnkeydeftly2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pepso2 (notify | contribs). Neither fairuse rationale is accurate. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC) Please indicate what is not accurate so I can fix. Thanks. Pepso2 (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC) Pepso2 (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain. Thanks. Pepso2 (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Denialist Hate Speech

First and foremost I would like to sincerely ask you for your help. Your input and patience is appreciated. I want to bring to your attention this. HD86 has made numerous comments such as "The Assyrians are EXTINCT people of ancient Mesopotamia whose name was stolen by some modern politicians and used in reference to the modern Syriacs. To label the modern Syriacs by "Assyrians" and to claim that "The Assyrian people trace their origins to the population of the pre-Islamic Levant" is indeed stupidity in its purest form." These comments are inflammatory, racist, unhistprical and outrageous. This user continues to deny that a whole race even exists. He needs to be wiki disciplined. This is unacceptable inflammtory denialist behavior. The equivalent of his statments would be that jews or arabs do not exist. Do you not see the point. His languge is very hateful and dimeaning to those of us involved in the project. If you take a look at his history he has similar incompetent statemetns regarding other controverisal topics. I ask for assistance in order to remove this hateful user from this discussion. He has denied the existence of an entire race that through ample ancient and modern evidence has existed for thousands of years. I will be waiting for your response.Ninevite (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ramu50, again

Still repeatedly reverting totally disputed additions to navboxen. Totally unrepentant. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Thanks...

for your help with this. Your request for the user strike to out his offensive comment is right on, and hopefully will get the point across. Much appreciated. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ricky - There has been further activity on this. User:Raven in Orbit re-added his pedo POV-pushers comment to the article talk page, and added a similar comment on his user page, and responded to your warning on his talk page with this: If you have to block me for calling these people pedo POV-pusher -- please go ahead. Another editor again removed the insult, but Raven in Orbit re-added it again.

He also added a comment that he believes the AN/I report was "turned down", with edit summary "yes true, an admin has already confirmed it" - I have no idea what he means by that.

If you have a chance, would you check it out? Thanks a lot. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Received your reply - thanks again for your help. Best Wishes - --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Lectures

Taking the time to lecture me on how to address banned users that have been causing me grief for months was a waste of both my time and yours. Try to focus your efforts on a) the encyclopedia itself, and b) users that are causing damage to it. Thanks. Warren -talk- 06:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

File:Computersniper.png

Excuse me, why is that image suddenly public domain? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just logged in because I saw an article I was going to split up and do some major revisions on. Then I saw I had a message from you, and was reminded what bullshit the image politics are here, particularly the fair use justification politics for magazine advertisments. Image in question was a magazine ad from 20 years ago and any fool could have seen it was necessary to illustrate the article in question. All you needed to do was fill in the information in question in the template. Far easier for you to just destroy the article and delete the image though. No sweat off my nose; betacommandbot and fairimagebot have been deleting pictures at a steady clip for months now. Makes private websites all the more useful and attractive - I'll keep working on mine. You, I guess, can feel free to keep destroying the hard work of others. As for me, having been reminded of the BS, I logged out and can't be bothered to to do my planned article revisions - garbage like the lazy bots and administrators who delete at the drop of a hat instead of just working with uploaders to communicate and verify do themselves more of a disservice than they realize. Congratulations. 139.48.25.60 (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As an FYI.

I thought you might get a kick out of this. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Britain's Josef Fritzl

Plase take another look at the article, and let me know what you think on the AfD page.:) Sticky Parkin 22:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

re: I am Mario's block

Seems like a good block to me. Considering WP:ARBMAC, I'm surprised more blocks haven't been handed out to some of the more contentious editors on the template talk page. Sigh. Still, glad he's been blocked for the threats and I just wish more admins would nite the bullett and get involved in Balkans editing. It's pretty thankless... so thank you.--AniMate 05:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Rjecina's the one I'm still amazed isn't blocked. True, he hasn't gone down the legal threat route, but his constant assumptions of bad faith and inability to work well with others... drives me crazy. Since an indef seems unlikely, if not unwarranted, I think it would be nice if he could get some sort of enforced mentorship, though that seems unlikely as well. Anyway, you seem to be walking the tight rope of being an admin in the Balkans editing very well since both sides of the partisans have gotten mad at you. Fairly certain I'll be starting an RFC/U once I've finished grading projects in a few weeks, because the atmosphere he's creating isn't helpful. --AniMate 06:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ricki Thx for heads up - Pls Read

Hi - I am the person Dman mentions as "anonymous user" (re Joe the Plumber). I'm sorry if this isn't the right place to reply, but I'm really new to Wikipedia and don't know all the rules for these situations.

First, re: my changing IP address, it is not some trick or anything. I simply have a laptop that needs to be rebooted periodically because after a while it runs very slow. When it re-connects to my modem I get automatically assigned a diff IP. It's not some kind of conspiracy. (In fact I will need to reboot shortly but you will be able to tell it's me.)

Second: A user called "Collect", who has been in more than 3 edit wars (and other improper use history) with other users, keeps instantly deleting what I feel are very valid suggestions for improving the "Joe the Plumber" article. Long story short, I didn't know what "trolling" was, or that what I wrote as a pun (Plumber's Ass." insteast of "Plumber's Assistant") would be interpreted as anything other than a quip or pun on the going controversy about his occupation. A simple comment like "you are trolling" would have alerted me to the misunderstanding; instead the discussion page was semi-locked & I only discovered this "trolling" issue by accident.

Finally: If an admin can please have a look at what I wrote and let me know if it really is "trolling" I will gladly simply rewrite it, keeping the valid point but replacing the silly terminology. I feel my suggestions for changing the article are logical, very valid, sincerely contributive improvements, and I have no problem using a phrase other than the one that everyone is mistaking for a simple insult, rather than its' actual contemporary meaning. ("Turd gurgler" simply means a person who's usually full of B.S.)

As I said, I need to reboot now, but (if it's not locked) I will remove "Turd gurgler" and re-post my suggestion for improving the article when I'm back on. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.116.124 (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow - just read your response to me. Was not expecting such an undeserved tirade for being new to wikipedia & not having set up a user account or etc. I had no idea people without accounts were such a problem for you guys.

Incindentally, the phrase I used was just referring to Joe in the discussion, it was never meant to be added to the article, nor did I ever indicate it should be. My point for the article was - and is - very valid: that Joe the Plumber's public image changed from a solid guy to unreliable due to his constant lying and tall tales (about buying his company on his salary, etc.)

I won't respond point for point to what you said, but my feelings about what a warm fuzzy resource Wikipedia is have completely shrank.

Um - I'm a more than a little shocked cold and completely put off by the response you gave. I won't be bothering you again or using or contributing to your resource, so mission accomplished on your part, I guess. Good job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.116.124 (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As I originally stated, I have removed the offending 2 pun/phrases and restated my point in plain English. Not surprisingly, all other editors have apperently disapeared, and only "Collect" popped up again, yet again with a reason why my valid suggestion should not be part of the "discussion" page.

As I mentioned earlier, user "Collect" has gotten way out of hand and is effectively bullying (or whatever) with me and other users whose opinion is different than his.

Can you please have a look and see if there is something somehow inappropriate or out of place with my corrected post? I would like to be able to make valid contributions to Wikipedia where appropriate like anyone else. (Can you also keep in mind the "assume good faith" and civility, etc. guidelines in your response to me? Thanks in advance, Ricky.)63.226.209.158 (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Can You Clarify Your Response re Joe the Plumber Edit?

Ricky, what do you mean by "Do the work for you?" (Let me know if this is not the place to respond, and if so, where is? My previous question to you went unanswered.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.210.77 (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean by criticizing all the other editors? I was specific in requesting help with one user, "Collect", who continues to attempt to bully and otherwise stifle legitimate contributions towards consensus. If you like I will omit his name specifically from the response to the situation, but the pattern of behavior speaks for itself.

"Collect"'s has also been the subject of many other editor's complaints, even within the same article's discussion page. Why are you singling out my complaint instead of everyone else's, instead of investigating the issue? It would help if an admin would give more than a superficial look and assessment of the issue.

63.226.210.77 (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why you semi-locked the discussion page, since I abided (and was willing to continue doing so while waiting for more info or instruction from you) your warning whether I understood it or not (it was the latter case).

You seem to have your hands full with berating & warding off people who actually care about Wikipedia, and a deep loathing for people who exercise the right to avoid creating accounts or logging into yet another webpage every time they boot their computer or surf from site to site. I'll happily leave you to it, espicially since it's Friday night. Cheers! 63.226.210.77 (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting JTP

Thanks. The anon really had no desire to improve the article (nor was he a newbie as he claimed). He was simply using the talk page to inject as much trolling and insults as possible under the guise of "discussing improvements".

While that article is rather low on my list of interests (not sure how it even made my watch list), his insulting the intelligence of everyone there gets rather tedious quickly. thanks again for the action. Dman727 (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk page protection

I have no interest in the article really (and would probably vote to redirect it to the campaign page as just an small footnote of history) but his comments to me in response were enough. It's clear he didn't care what the article said so much as insult one particular user. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys - It's me, the anonymous user on JTP again. (As I explained earlier I have a loptop that starts to run slow after it's been on for while so I have to reboot, which causes my IP to change. I don't like logging in to multiple sites at each reboot, hence my consistent changes in my IP. It's really not a conspiracy.) I've gotta jet shortly, but just want to let you know something.

I actually am a newbie editor. I've been reading articles on wikipedia for some time now, but until very recently (JtP's emergence) haven't had any desire for personally editing stuff. The almost complete absence of any reference in the article to Sam W's more nefarious aspects surprized me, esp. after it became common & accepterd knowledge in the media. After a while it provoked me into wanting it mentioned, so attempted a few edits, and also brought out a good deal of humor which spilled over (obviously) into my commentary.

At no time WHATSOEVER was I interested in anything like vandalizing the work people do for wikipedia. I did not know until after I found the Discuss page locked, what "trolling" is, (and indeed had to refresh my memory on "specious"). That said, it became tremendously frustrating to read the stifled editorial attempts by others to correct or contribute, and when my legit contibutions were stifled in the manner I recently decribed, the absurd humor of it all came out in full force. Behind the humor early on is a logical, contributing person who appreciates it when people like Dman & the rest (who gave fair, rational criticisms of me) are adding to the pool of intelligent thought in the world. In my humble opinion, what I and others have complained about with "Collect" is justified and deserves rational consideration.

Nuff said. 63.226.220.75 (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

User:EagleScout18

I call your attention (if you hadn't already noticed) to deletions he made on his talk page, presumably either because he didn't like them or in hopes an admin would overlook them - this one by me [4] and this one by Grsz11 [5]. I've already said that I thought the indef was a bit steep, but it's become clear that his agenda is to push a point of view about Obama, and I don't see any hint that he thinks there's anything wrong with that. Note especially this presumably sincere but misguided idea [6] that should "help Wikipedia get a jump start" on the topic, which I take to mean that he wants wikipedia to be on the leading edge - which is totally counter to the wikipedia philosophy. Wikipedia reports information from verifiable sources, it does not originate information. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I figured you were watching. Mostly I wanted to summarize. :) Truth to tell, I don't like to see anyone get blocked. But wikipedia is of growing importance on the internet. I know people who specifically talk about how they've used wikipedia as a source, being probably mostly unaware of all this petty drama that goes on beneath the surface. And I typically come here as a starting point for when I want to find out something about something. It also tends to show up on Google near the top of the list. So I've taken the approach that wikipedia is worth defending, from POV-pushers as well as blatant vandals. I got a strong taste of that when dealing with the Sarah Palin article. Personally I think she's a ditz, but I and others did the best we could to keep the tabloid junk out of the article, to try to keep it to wikipedia standards; because we kept in mind that someone might come here to get a non-partisan, factual summary of her life and career. I'm hopeful (but not optimistic) that EagleScout could get that message eventually. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I also want to point out that EagleScout took a shot at my own checkered block history: [7] (which he probably didn't know about) and [8] (which he did). I would like to think I learned from those mistakes. I'm coming up on a year, this weekend, since the last time I was blocked. And unlike EagleScout, I owned up to the fact that those blocks were deserved, and I "took them like a man", i.e. without protest. A pause here while I pat myself on the back. 0:) But as I tried to tell him in the item he deleted, he needs to figure out why he was blocked and address that, rather than complaining about everyone else, which is a sure-fire formula for continuing to be blocked, based on what I've seen with many others in the past. OK, I'm done. Thanks fer listenin'. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hard to figure what he's up to now, asking for protection of his talk page; but barring sockpuppetry, it will be at least a week before he's heard from again, and we'll see if anything has changed in the interim. It's worth pointing out that while deleting criticism from one's own talk page is considered impolite, it's not expressly against the rules; the conventional assumption is that by deleting it, it at least suggests that he has read it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out, in case you hadn't noticed, that the weird spam (or whatever it was) was posted by a now-blocked IP [9]. There was another IP posting the same thing, and the same admin blocked it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk page protection

Why? Do we grant disruptive indef blocked users their wishes? If you're going to protect it, shouldn't it be to prevent him from editing, and in that case should redirect to the block tag? Grsz¹¹ 06:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the 1-week protection of his talk page is probably a good idea, even if (or especially if) he hadn't asked for it himself. He's using the page to continue combative dialogue rather than to post a proper unblock request, so it's really serving no valid purpose at this point. We'll see what happens during the next 7 days, if anything. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ramu50 again :(

I've created this RFCU: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ramu50

Do you think I got it right? Am I over-reacting? ...etc. Jeh (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Ricky81682. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You can find the specific section here.

To clarify, you are not the subject of the ANI, but you have been previously involved in or have commented on this or a related ANI. Thank you for your time. Jeh (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Modifying the block of in IP address

For your information, it is now possible to change a block of a user/IP address, without unblocking first. The way to do it is:

1. Go to the block user page for the user/IP address.
2. Set the new settings.
3. Check the "Re-block the user with these settings" box.
4. Click on the block button.

For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am Mario

I've been mostly inactive for a few days, so haven't kept up with events, but I've just been through the various threads and fully support the block. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 08:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Thanks for the heads up. I'll give it the attention it deserves. Orpheus (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sethacus and OUTING

PER http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information

I believe you will be giving the user Sethacus an immediate block instead of just posting to his talk page telling him how to get around it. That is of course unless you are ready to give up your adminship...

You can deal with it or i can just make it known on the admin board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.236.185 (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Going in circles again on Bosnian map discussion

Ricky, sorry for long discussion. I'm again having trouble in talking with Laz, as it is going in circles over and over. It seems to me that the guy is contradicting himself in every other word. I think I'll use short pause on wikipedia (this weekend). Moreover I'd like to thank you for all the trouble and guidance you've done. If you have any advice on how to fix this discussion, I'll be back in Monday. Once again, thanks.--Čeha (razgovor) 00:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust Article

Thanks for the update, I think somebody hacked into your system--Woogie10w (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Paulus.PNG

Hi! I'm quite positive that I released this picture into the public domain (I've taken it myself, obviously). I really don't know why it doesn't show. Maybe you'd fancy taking a look?

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by GMM1919 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Image Question - Wikipedia vs. Commons

Ricky, Thanks in advance for your help.

I have a question re: linking to images in the Commons vs. Wikipedia. Here's the scenario:

• I received GFDL and CC3.0 permissions from a photographer to include an image in an article.
• I then uploaded the image to Wikipedia and sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and forwarded the email from the photographer
• Got an email from "permissions" that said, "Thanks," please take these steps to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons, and then reply to this email.
• After doing that, I quickly got an email from permissions who put an OTRS tag on the photo in the Commons.

So far, so good -- but now I notice that the image that I originally put in Wikipedia is marked for speedy deletion because a duplicate exists in the Commons. I understand that (why have it in both places especially since the Commons image is OTRS approved) but here is my question.

Both the Wikipedia image (which I assume will be deleted soon) and the Commons version have the same filename. Once the Wikipedia version is deleted, will the article that links to the image automatically find the image in the Commons? W0129 (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done thanks! W0129 (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

_David^WS _(contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays! _David^WS _(contribs) 19:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:128.122.253.212 is back with unhelpful edits

Greetings Ricky 81682 - I see that you blocked this user (User talk:128.122.253.212) last month. Please help. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. Not even when user's previous edit summaries state user's aims? OK, so there's no smoking gun... Sigh! --Technopat (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

It was a mistake, I apologise. It was supposed to be a test edit. I didn't intend to press "Save Page". 12bigbrother12 02:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

question

Could you please tell me what the proper way is to delete images with no source, or images who have a source which has been determined to be bad? (LAz17 (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)).

Paulus.PNG

Thanks for taking care of it! I appreciate it, man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GMM1919 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:1292 BC births

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:1292 BC births, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:1292 BC births has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:1292 BC births, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by Pro-Extremists

The site Sikh Extremism has been under constant attack by pro extremists, they wanted the article deleted esp users: Roadahead, Sikh-history, Singh6.

Prominent names in the article have been removed or diluted for example Terry Milewski becomes Milewski, references to the term 'Theocratic' have been removed, sections on 'Sikh Terrorism' have been deleted or diluted. Also I have asked repeatedly where I have attacked anyone? The response is zero, please give examples first so I can deal with them. Satanoid (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would also point several admin voted to keep the article against a heavy campaign by pro-extremists who wish to use Wikipedia for purposes of radicalisation Satanoid (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop being ridiculoes Satanoid. Discuss points before making disruptive edits. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by user:Sikh-history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Sikh_Youth_Federation&diff=258108449&oldid=258089161

Please state how and where the LTTE have anything to do ith this ?

I kindly await your response ? Satanoid (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Too much info has been deleted, the spellings are incorrect Lashkar-e-Tayiba is a distortion of the correct Lashkar-e-Toiba Satanoid (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Again Satanoid, stop being ridiculous, discuss points before making edits and deleting other people refrences. --Sikh-history (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

That was taken to AN/I because after 2 days of constant false accusations and attacks (for which I provided plenty of evidence) I felt administrative action is required to stop it. Do you feel at this point I will no longer be attack and harassed by either of these individuals?--Crossmr (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Petty? And some words on the Sikh conflict.

Now given, I may have done immature things (some users don't like friendly language like "fella"), and maybe you don't appreciate the allusion to Porky Pig, but petty? What is petty? I'm just letting them know that I am now using an account, so there is no need to continue that (weird) brawl at my talk page. It is not a big deal.

As for the dispute, see my user page for a multitude of good sources in favor of "theocratic." The net sum of the dispute is that certain users want to whitewash the conflict, removing as many suggestions of religious motivation or religious goals as they can, contrary to most accounts which acknowledge a deep religious element to the Sikh movement. Of course they don't see this as whitewashing, they think it is the more correct assessment, but most reliable sources don't appear to agree with them.

Now I don't care if you block Satanoid (he was being too aggressive and not using reliable sources some times), but that you let more subtle disruptive editors (like Sikh-history) get away is unfortunate. Sikh-history has persistently been dishonest about the content of sources, see [10], a source directly describes the bodyguards as "extremist" but he removes it based on his personal objections. He once even claimed that the source "Refrence makes absolutely no refernce to the body guards being extremists." But it does, so now he is back to just removing it. I can't believe this! It is from an academic journal, his behavior is inexcusable and obviously disruptive. Yet he is being kept safe...

Elsewhere he has baselessly accused me of having some sort of religious prejudice [11][12].

In response to my emphasis on WP:OR and WP:UNDUE, he stated that the "These rules do not appply here" [13].

Sikh-history has tried to use fringe sources (khalistan.net), to counter academic work with politicians (taking out Kapur and adding using a politician's statement in a Congressional Record instead), and otherwise shown a double standard and dragged his feet with regard to the policies. Now, he is taking one (just one) good source that says "constituent assembly" and trying to use it to not only back "democratic," but wipe out the multitude of reliable sources saying "theocratic."

I can elaborate on these claims if you question them, but I stress that you should look through Sikh-history's contributions, look at the conflicts he has been involved in (a number of them spilled over to the discussion page), and tell me if you really think he consistently follows our content rules, or if he is really just advancing his own views while ignoring or acknowledging the rules based on whether or not it works for him. That he has made hurtful accusations, or reverted others' edits as "vandalism," only makes it worse.

Until you deal harshly with the other side (primarily Sikh-history and Roadahead), they'll just keep moving the goalposts in order to avoid the tons of reliable sources favoring "theocratic" or otherwise asserting that there was a religious element to the conflict. Wikipedia will never accord with authoritative narrative. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is your and Satanoids problem. You create bad faith by dismissing other editors. See the discussion here on Indira Gandhi. You are relying on one source. I also proved that the term holocaust was used by other sources to described the Delhi Riots in 1984 here. Your objection was that the Khalistan site described the Delhi riots as a holocaust. You were proved wrong.

The one source I used on "Constiuent Assembly" is reliable. I would place far more weight on Dr Gopal Singh then the "google" sources you have cited. In anycase, have you not placed undue weight on one citation on the Gandhi article? Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never cited "google," please be honest, even though Ricky does not seem to require it of you. As for khalistan.net, the use of "Sikh holocaust" (not found in most sources) was only one objection. The site is generally of religious and political activism, and is not reliable.

Other sources do not say contrary to Hardgrave, and he is writing as an authority in a reliable context, so there is little reason to contest what he has said. This differs from the "theocratic" versus "democratic" debate, since many many sources say "theocratic" while only a few (usually of lesser reliability) say "democratic." And your Gopal Singh still does not say "democratic," so please stop applying your own definitions to synthesize the conclusion "democratic." We are not in place, as editors, to say that his "constituent assembly" can be treated as synonymous with "democratic." Nevertheless, I think I saw other references to their "extremist" nature while plowing about JSTOR and other resources, so I'll rally those for you. But how many will I need? You haven't cared yet how many reliable sources I bring, news or from journals and books.

Accusing someone of "creating bad faith" itself creates bad faith.

Anyway, Ricky, I've responded to you at my talk. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You really are some piece of work. You argued the Khalistan site was unreliable specifically on the point that it described the Delhi riots as a holocaust (which it was for those concerned, even though you may deny it). You sound like that "fella" who was locked up in Austria for denying the Jewish holocaust never existed. Every source I furnished disproved your point on the "holocaust" in Delhi and I can furnish more impartial sources just to ram home the point.

Calling me "some piece of work" and comparing me to a convicted Holocaust denier? Does that "keep good faith" as you say you always do? Anyway, the claim that I argued "specifically" on the Sikh holocaust is a strawman; it simply stood out to me the most, so I brought it up, but it was clear throughout that I objected to the website for its general religious and political activism, not just the holocaust theory. To step back, are you actually proposing using khalistan.net as a source again, or are you just gloating that you found sources for the alleged Sikh holocaust? If the latter, don't expect me to play along much longer. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You denied that the Delhi Riots were described as a holocaust. Stop denying it!--Sikh-history (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidently you are not seriously proposing the use of khalistan.net by this discussion, so I will stop feeding you. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr Gopal Singh has a long narrative on this issue and I picked out the most relevant bit i.e. "Constituent Assembly" part, and guess what"Constituent Assembly" = no Theocracy. The articles you have presented are a series of what I can best describe as a series of "Chinese Whispers", wheras Dr Gopal Singh (who is a heavy weight in Sikh History) has relied on records and written records. As I have stated before, when it comes to Sikh History you are out of your depth. The article you proposed on Miri-Piri was a case in point, it was just laughable.

"guess what"Constituent Assembly" = no Theocracy" - that's your original research. As for the rest about Singh versus my sources, well, that's you trying to get around WP:UNDUE. Overall, I think you are seeing this too much as a battle between researchers (you versus me), hence claiming I'm "out of (my) depth." A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not invent the term Constituent Assembly, or are you saying that a Constituent Assembly and a Theocracy are the same? Do not hide behind tags and clever language. It's not a battle for me, but I want to see a NPOV, and you specifically intervene where you wish a POV added.Ok here is some homework for you, look up Patwant Singh, Mcleod, Noel Q King, DR JS Grewal, DR Mann, Jagjit Singh, HR Gupta, DR Gopal Singh? Ring any bells? You are editing on articles to do with Sikh History, therefore I would expect knowledge of these authors and reserchers. No?--Sikh-history (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not have to satisfy any of your expectations unless they are align with the expectations following from Wikipedia guidelines. "No, I did not invent the term Constituent Assembly, or are you saying that a Constituent Assembly and a Theocracy are the same?" - I neither accused you of inventing the term, nor did I say a Constituent Assembly is the same as a Theocracy. I have only stressed that we are not in place to say what these items mean beyond what is taken directly from the sources. And again, "but I want to see a NPOV, and you specifically intervene where you wish a POV added". A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As for me, I have always tried to remain balanced and keep good faith, but you from day one have acted in a very confrontational manner. I would go as far to say I still think you and Satanoid are the same person. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"I have always tried to remain balanced and keep good faith, but you from day one have acted in a very confrontational manner". A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Until you deal harshly with the other side (primarily Sikh-history and Roadahead)--Sikh-history (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)/wiki/Religious_prejudice

You link to religious prejudice, but your quote betrays no such prejudice whatsoever. Care to explain what is essentially an accusation of religious prejudice? A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I really cannot be bothered by this as I know I am better than this. I hope when the next Balbir Sodhi happens, you can live with your conscience. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Arjun MBT

Requesting Admins to correct the Summer 2006 section of the page based on the discussion (Check Talk page). If you have any questions on the discussion or any apprehension about the subject that can be asked in the talk page and I will answer. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Cemal Gürsel

Your interference in Cemal Gursel Page

I see that you deleted a whole paragraph in the biography article saying "nice but irrelevant" which is sad and disturbing.

Firstly, I am familiar with some negative stubborn obsessive interferences by you in the past in the same article which I see that you decided to come back with further vandalism.

Secondly, you vandalised (perhaps 'inadvertently!?) the first and last sentences of the paragraph you deleted as well although these sentences are not part of the letter.

Mostly, the letter is most relevant (and you are misinformed, misinterpreting) as it reflects his understanding of being a soldier as well as his standing in reference to political life and it is truly a biopsy specimen, if you would like, of his philosophies.

As I do know that you will either continue to stalk with oppositional defiance like the way you did in the future, mutilating the paragraph and the article photos like the way you concerted with some sidekick editor friends of yours, or you will message some skewed characters like you to come and stalk as you direct them to interfere negatively like you did in the past.

I hope this time you will decide to behave better and live and let live and let other people's good faith creations and learned contributions to this encylclopedia stand as they are intended when you did not help them do this in the first place.

Just go to your way and leave this article alone, try to be a human being.

Dadashim —Preceding unsigned comment added by DADASHIM (talk • contribs) 13:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

ISYF

The article International Sikh Youth Federation has had certain facts removed such as the fact that:

1) They are banned under EU, UK, US, Indian legislation.

2) Information related to Lord Bassam describing the ISYF as: "The Special Immigration Appeals Committee found in July last year that two ISYF members were a threat to UK national security. There is still a problem here. Despite what the noble Lord said about his contact with those who support the ISYF, we believe that it fits very much and very firmly within the criteria that we have carefully considered and carefully established."

I'd like your reasons as to why this is information has been omitted despite its high relative importance to he subject matter. Thanks Satanoid (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I made a few small changes, I noticed a lot of information has been edited and many good International news references have been rubbished. No doubt I suspect I will be banned for mentioning this and making 'uncivil remarks' (which I haven't)

I wanted to ask why the link to Sikh Terrorism is no longer there ? Is there a new article coming out ? Here's a good starting point for references.

http://www.milnet.com/tgp/data/sikh.htm

http://photos.merinews.com/catFull.jsp;jsessionid=54CE24FAC9C63304AAFF05FCEDC10D91?articleID=150497 Satanoid (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Indira Gandhi

Hi Ricky, I e-mailed Professor Hardgrave regarding whether Indira Gandhi's body guards were extremists and he sent me this respone. Is it Ok to remove the word extremist? Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Per your comment on a recent AN/I thread,

In regards to the satanoid(don't know if that is the correct spelling, don't really care to find out), you appear to quote the editor in question regarding WP:OUTING, wouldn't revealing this name constitute WP:OUTING?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Treaty-pg2.JPG

Do you recall if this image you listed on PUI was used in any articles? I think I made a fairly good case why the image would be free, but the closing admin disagreed with me. I looked around through both your respective edit histories to see if it had been removed from any articles, and I didn't see that it had--but I certainly might have missed something. I think it's pretty clear based on Pakistani copyright law that the image is free, but there's no point in raising the issue at WP:DRV if the image was unused. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Weird templating

I have looked it over, but can't seem to find anything incorrect. It doesn't seem to affect the article the template is transcluded appears in, and appears to happen to some other article as well. Wongm (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:The Assemblies of Yahweh

Is this page you suggest for all further discussion concerning the AOY article or for talk of templates only? Fctedt (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

January 2009

Question on references for AOY article

I noticed that the main section you have recently removed from the AOY article was concerning doctrines of the AOY. That section starts off stating that this is what is "professed" by the AOY. The section is given as a brief summary of "some" of the beliefs. The AOY's very own statement of doctrine is given as reference to this section. I'm not sure how (or even why) a third party would be referenced to show what the AOY professes to believe. I have not found an article yet on Wikipedia about a religious organization that references third parties concerning what that organization itself professes. I.e. The Southern Baptist Convention cites only it's own proclamations as to what it professes to believe. No other sources are quoted as to what they say the SBC believes. The article on Orthodox Judaism quotes only their own writings as to what they believe. Even the Heavens Gate page uses only what the group itself professes to believe. If there are any sources such as an encyclopedia or newspapers that contains information on what an organization itself professes to believe, they would have only gotten that information from the organization's own proclamations. In a situation as this it seems almost like checking with J.C. Penny to see what Sears professes to sale. There could be no better source of information as to what Sears professes to sale than the Sears catalog. On articles of this nature (religious groups) it would be difficult if not impossible to reference third parties as to what that group itself professes. Unless a reference is found to accurately quote the group's own statement of doctrine it would then fall into the category of inaccurate and biased. If it is an accurate quote it would seem redundant. As pointed out earlier, no article on religious organizations on Wik. does this. I have not found (yet) any calls to remove these areas from those articles or any other calls of deletion or notability. This whole situation seams difficult. What do you suggest in a matter such as this? Thank you for your time. Fctedt (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

To the most part Ricky your edits are not improving the aoy articles at all. I'm thinking of reporting you on admin noticeboard for deleting images, paragraphs and columns and calling it "clean up". It is respectfull to put what you are going to do on the talk page first. You are a Editor, please stop playing vandal 212.103.241.89 (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoegaarden

Will you have a look at what I've done to the article. Your Pizza Kitchen example gave me an idea. The Pepsi articles are split between the company and the product (with dietary information) and I think this presents the perfect solution for the Hoegaarden problem. It actually makes the Hoegaarden article consistent with other articles about companys taht produce consumables. Thanks a lot for discussing the issue. Hopefully this will be a satisfactory soultion for everyone? I mean product information about the beer range must belong somewhere right? Betty Logan (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Indira Gandhi assassination, again

Hi Ricky. Could you please revisit the situation at Indira Gandhi assassination? The compromise you helped forge has broken down, and I hope that you could perhaps lend a third opinion and some clear administrator's wisdom to the discussion, which seems to have stalled. I feel that the discussion itself is going in circles, and I have been repeatedly accused of WP:ILIKEIT and trying to "spread confusion," among other things, which has made the situation even more unpleasant. Thanks for any help resolving this dispute. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 00:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for neutral opinion

Hi Ricky, I first congratulate you on your previous successful mediations in Sikh Extremism article. There has been another article Operation Blue Star which has been hotly debated and is related to the issue of Sikh extremism. There has been one failed mediation process. Recently I objected to certain (in my opinion) inflammatory but sourced portion being added to the article. It would be great if you can chip in with some observation on the issue and shepherd the article for few days. LegalEagle (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng {chat} 00:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Soul Eater characters

Although it is appreciated that you started to remove WP:OR, I believe you removing important content too. Although the attacks are justified, character personality and development are important in understanding the work of fiction, in this case Soul Eater. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 02:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Apology

Ricky, I would like to apologise if you thought I was assuming bad faith on your eidts. I don't understand why you and Bali have been so forceful in changing the articles I have created, but hopefully we can smooth things out In Citer (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC).

Latin American Article...

Thank you, I understand. I do have many sources for the "many White Argentines have some Amerindian ancestry" as much as 56% of them, yet no one will allow me to leave them there.... Perfectly good sources and edits in perfectly fine places. Interesting. I do understand about changing the figure from 97%, though. Sorry for that, my mistake. Cali567 (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Assemblies of Yahweh page edits needed

I saw you did some "keep all ref citations to the same" editing on this page. I just put some new text with new refs and I'm starting to mess up the refs. I.e. The Reading Eagle ref I put doesn't have a direct link anymore just text. Also there are some repeated refs that would be nice to have all relevant ref points go to the same note so as not to fill up the ref note section with repeats. Is there a tutorial page for this task I can go to? Thanks for your time. Fctedt (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just did a major edit on the AOY page. Had to go over your clean up. (Didn't know what to do after all of that work!) Cleaning up the ref note area will really help. Will stay off the page the rest of the night! Thanks Fctedt (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry again, I'm messing up your work.Fctedt (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I solemnly affirm that I am done for the night! I will read the links you gave. What do you think of the article right now. I tried to keep it streamlined and there are now some hard refs to go with it. Thanks for your time. Fctedt (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you for the heads up

could you deal with him please? Its stalky. --Cerejota (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ricky, the debate is over the article, NOT the talk page. But the problem is calling me a vandal with no reason (per WP:VAN). Squash Racket (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, on tone, what did I do wrong? I mean it seriously, so I don't mess it up next time.

On less serious stuff, take a look at my version of the article: User:Cerejota/Operation Cats Lead. Isn't better? And its sourced!--Cerejota (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Argentine related Articles...

I've asked, typed, waited for replies on what different users think of adding factual information having to do with the articles in question... I usually get the same person over and over. Where exactly is the discussiona bout this situation. I add Factual, Sourced edits, yet I'm always Reverted. These people who are reverting would just like to keep all Amerindian context to the bare minimum - so little that it indeed takes away from reality. Fercho88, keeps asking administrators to block me?, why? Because I add relevant information that he doesn't like? Cali567 (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the source I meant, and now re-reading it is 6.5%... I must have remembered wrong. Thank you for unblocking me as well, I would really like to get this stuff straightened out. Cali567 (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ricky, as you being an administrator and also an important Third opinion I would like you to help as for reaching a consensus regarding this issue at Demographics of Argentina.

Cheers, --Fercho85 (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Cali567

Ricky, even though this user was warned Cali567 continued to make not only disruptive edits but now has removed images and perfectly cited statements at Demographics of Argentina[14] which I assume is called pure vandalism. His incivility and lack of etiquette is reflected on his recently edits on Argentina article[15] Thanks in advance,

--Fercho85 (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Thanks

100px		Hello, fellow reading fan
		Thanks for being one of the major contributors at ≈ The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas ---Go reading!!!---

--CFountain (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuous vandalism at the page of Luis Miguel

Hi, you mentioned in my talk page that I should let you know if vandalism continued within the article of Luis Miguel. Well, similar editing seems to have taken place [16], this time; however, by another anonymous IP use. I believe, it would probably be better if you could just apply a page protection. Because it seems to me there are more than one of them playing with sales figures. Would you be able to protect the page indefinitely, because temporary protection would keep them away only for awhile. Thanks again.--Harout72 (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I hate to keep disturbing you regarding this issue, but I really think it would be better if you could apply the page protection as the total sales figure keeps being vandalized by anonymous IPs, [17]. I don't think vandals care to read what's on the discussion page. Thanks again.--Harout72 (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rick, thanks for stepping in again to help me keep that page clean, that page is simply crawling with vandals and last thing I was expecting was someone to decide to take me to ANI for removing poorly sourced statements and replacing them with reliable ones.--Harout72 (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fragments of Jade community ban

Already being discussed on AN: [18]

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Clifford Geary

Hi Ricky, Can you please tell me why you removed the image of Clifford Geary's book from his bio? The book was first printed over 45 years ago, and has been out of print for at least 25. It is relevant. In addition to science fiction and other illustrations, he was a fine arts painter. Photos of some of his work are part of a collection in the Smithsonian.Geary2009 (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara

I still had this watchlisted, but it had dropped off my radar until this edit. Frankly, I'm too tired of all the nationalist nonsense to get involved, so I've not looked closely, but thought you might want to take a heads-up.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind…

You do realize I'm not an admin, right? :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

2009 WRC

Thanks for cleaning up 2009 Rally Norway and 2009 Cyprus Rally! DES (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Rjecina

Dear Ricky81682, I understand that you seem to know User:Rjecina, based on your past dialogue. He is accusing me and several other users of being all socket puppets of one another, and asking admins on the admin boards to get me banned. I'm having a report on him too, and there is an ongoing discussion on the admin board with several other users, though not all has showed up yet. Please, if you are interested in this discussion, you could leave a comment on the report. You can find a link to it on my talk page. Thank you. --Bizso (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Honestly, I feared that no one would read that much text, so you are right about that. I'll write a new one and focus solely on the socket puppet accusations. Although I think that all the diffs I provided are correct. What should I do if he keeps removing britannica and encarta links? --Bizso (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Only the first report was on my talk page, and that was a past report. There were 2 that linked to Rjecina's two different current ANI threads about me. The the 2nd and 3rd linked to my reports. I posted each under his reports on both admin boards--Bizso (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice --Bizso (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Summary attempt

I guess their main dispute is about whether we should refer to Kings of Hungary as such or Kings of Hungary AND Kings of Croatia. Read the article Pacta conventa (Croatia), I added a lot of good sources yesterday. Squash Racket (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why they don't check how are the kings referred to in English sources. I found these sources online in a minute. I guess they are not able to type "Pacta Conventa Croatia" in Google Books' search field... Squash Racket (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, read the references

Please, be advised to read references supplied by other editors before accusing them for POV pushing:

The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation, 1918-2004 by Sabrina P. Ramet Published by Indiana University Press, 2006 ISBN 0253346568, 9780253346568 Page 589

Quote: "...and the erection of the aforementioned memorial plaque to Ustaša leader Jure Francetić in Slunj figure not merely as rejections of the Partisan and communist legacy but also an embrace, by those responsible, of the NDH and, in consequence, of ethnic hatred."

--138.88.15.10 (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Terrell Owens

Yeah, but I saw WP:BLP problems arising; feel free to shorten or undo the protection, I'm not that dogmatic :). Lectonar (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Jasenovac etc... new solution

Hi Ricky, regarding a long term solution to the problems on the various articles, I'd like to invite User:Elonka to get involved. Personally, I have walked away. I can't be arsed with it all. I would be interested in a good approach to things, if possible. As far as you are concerned, should we bring in a fuckbusting firefighter? Up to now, the children have had no specified limits...AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I'm not quite sure what you meant with "you're better than that". Is this something a non-native might not understand at first sight? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 02:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Pacta conventa (Croatia)

In this article and Croatia in personal union with Hungary I have added statement confirmed with Encarta and Britannica + I have added links (source). Maybe you can look ?--Rjecina (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain me oversight ?--Rjecina (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. He has not writen my personal informations. This has been only another small harassment. My thinking has been to use oversight for deleting possible misleading comments by banned users which I have only blanked.

What is your thinking about my changes in articles Croatia in personal union with Hungary and Pacta conventa (Croatia) ?--Rjecina (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What was there misleading about the banned user's comment? He listed totally valid sources. Also, I'm glad you finally added SOURCED statements, because you have seemed to be in the habit of removing every possible source including britannica and encarta from Wikipedia so far. Next step would be that you not delete other sourced statements cited by other users while you're adding yours.--Bizso (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the sources that the user listed in the first part of his post. The second part of the post could be considered redundant, as it was not relevant to the topic.--Bizso (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I see now what you meant. It doesn't matter whether the user wrote something useful or not. If he got banned then his comments can be deleted without any further reason.--Bizso (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara lyrics again

Yes, I saw that pop up on my watchlist!

I can't see any fundamental difference between the article now and the article as it was (or tried to be) when I offered a third opinion on it: including one selected set of lyrics in full gives undue weight to that version of the song. Sadly the article doesn't seem to have been expanded at all - it's really a stub that mentions there are numerous versions of the song - and the only "change" is to include the full set of lyrics to one version of the song.

At this point I can't offer a neutral third opinion (if one were to be requested again) because I'm already involved, but my position is essentially unchanged. There might be some value in requesting a fresh opinion but I'm not convinced it would necessarily have any success.

Would it be worth getting various WikiProjects involved? I'm thinking maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia? It would get more eyes on the issue and maybe a better balance of views.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked for and received advice on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. The lyrics have been deleted. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please check

Dear Ricky81682, I would like to ask you in the spirit of the ANI proposal and as an uninvolved admin if you could check that I could submit a thread on data and citation manipulation. Please take a look at the post here and tell me whether the issues described violate any Wikipedia policy. Thanks.--Bizso (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned this issue in my previous thread, but you told me that there were too many accusations and nobody would read them.--Bizso (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Ricky, Since you haven't replied to my message, I presume you don't have any objections to my posting the thread.
As a side note, I don't have anything against Rjecina, but he has been reverting every single one of my edits including removal of sources I added while he hasn't been making "very constructive" edits on his end. On top of that, he has been accusing me of sock puppetry, too. When I bring the issue to the admin board, he just simply logs off and keeps a low profile. After the storm has passed, he comes back and sets about his revert binge. (has happened before) Anyway, this is not to be embroiled in the case above.--Bizso (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Ricky, you can check everything yourself...--Bizso (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You know what? Forget it. It has been already explained. The Croat article was nothing more just "vandal" reverts, although he was reverting the "wrong" vandals. In the other case at the Coloman article, that was just "sloppy editing" adding sources that state the exact contrary of what he used them to support. This makes sense now if you look at it this way. Anyway, sorry for "stirring the shit" as Future Sunrise put it..., he also confirmed that he would ban me for having started another thread on his personal attacks against me. I think it's time for me to take a wikibreak --Bizso (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: WP:ARBMAC decision

Dear Admin, No comment. Only reference: [19], Information warfare.

Best regards! --Dvatel (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:KS3 Maffs copied your user page

User:KS3 Maffs copied your user page today. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Copying Question from Help Desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

similar to school

Croats

Really nice. Another account which is checking my editorial history. You, Alasdair and few others need to create club :)

You have not noticed that I have entered very late edit warring about this and that I have been edit warring only about total number of Croats. After recieving data from both sides in October I have changed number of Croats and that I have solved this problem or even that I have accepted claims that number of Croats in Serbia is lower when source is shown. In the end on talk pages you are having all data how I have come to number of 9 milions [20]--Rjecina (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Another thing. This has been original table in article Croats. It is having 2 sources for 9 milion because source 1 + source 2= more of 8 milions (this is without Bosnia). Now 1 source is deleted by somebody and we are having weird situation that number is 9 milion but source for this number is saying 4.5 milions ???? Can you please solve this (I am on short vaccation) ?--Rjecina (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust Template

There is no disagreement in article Jasenovac over the inclusion of the Holocaust template. We are having old consensus about this. Consensus can change, but until this happen old consensus is valid and it is protected. Even we are having 3RR rule exceptions for edits against consensus ! You point is that consensus is not important ?--Rjecina (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:User Republika Srpska

You have noticed this on my user page and started deletion request :)

Can you please explain me why this template is better of worst of templates: This user supports the independence of Palestine, or This user support independent Kosovo, or ...... ?--Rjecina (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User page

You have not looked enough in history of my edits. There has been ANI discussion about my user page and result has been around 5:1 (I do not know if it has been 4,5 or 6 against 1) that my user page is OK. --Rjecina (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain problem with my user page. In your thinking what need to be changed ?

For example I have long time ago deleted on my user page my support for independent Kosovo, after comment of another Balkan user. I am on wiki for around next 10 minutes and then it is time for wiki break.--Rjecina (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Coloman

To tell you truth my problem is that during last year we are having newly created accounts which are starting attack on my edits with lies or using misleading facts and I again and again and again must defend my edits like I am attacked by established user. Only now I have seen last lies (misleading facts ?) of Bizso about Coloman. His attack on my edit in article Coloman is using false arguments. He is attacking me for this, but this has been only my partial edit !! 5 minutes latter I have ended editing this article with this. Now my edits have been OK or something else is problematic (about Coloman) ?!

This encyclopedia is having different version of events, not even I can agree with that, but .....

Point is: nobody is disputing personal union, nobody is disputing existence of separate Hungarian parliament and Croatian parliament, nobody is disputing existence of separate Croatian army and Hungarian army. Only thing disputed is if Croatia has been Hungarian province (Coloman King of Hungary or Coloman King of Hungary and Croatia) !? Province with parliament, army and money (article Croatian kuna) ???--Rjecina (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Future perfect has shown me my mistake in article Coloman. To be honest only 1 out of 3 my links have been right. During heat of debate I have missed this ......--Rjecina (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Tired

I am really tired of administrator which is trying to block or we can say which is looking for my mistakes again and again ulmost 8 months. Can you explain your past "good faith" mistakes which have been always against me ? I do not know number of this mistakes. You ? --Rjecina (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjecina, if I were you I'd better stick to the point, which you are trying to avoid.

Again you are saying I am a sock puppet, but you do not explain your falsification of data and sources. And now you are saying that I'm telling misleading facts and lies. Rjecina, it was you who falsified information, not me. In the Croat article you changed all the numbers, not just the total. You didn't revert the "vandals" once but 5 times, and you said that the sources confirmed the falsely inflated numbers that you were reinserting. Actually, it was you who promoted the false data. In the Coloman article, that's just clear falsification of sources. And don't tell me that you didn't know what you were referring to as those sources had been discussed in other pages before in which you participated. --Bizso (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you will not agree but I have been very nice with Bizso. Patience is never rewarded. I seriously thinking of starting of 1 SSP, but there is no point because another new account will start another noticeboard action against me. Maybe I am pessimist !?--Rjecina (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

removed comment

I put my response here from the other discussion at User_talk:Rjecina#Explanation_right_nowtalkpage, because Rjecina has removed it without any comment. [21]

How does this excuse this falsification of data and sources, may I ask? Rjecina is not a "new user with sloppy editing". Fut Perf, are you sure? Really? And Are you also sure that I am "stirring the shit"? I would be glad if you mentioned the other four reverts, too, where again Rjecina reinserted the false information. Please respond in the thread--Bizso (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Media Take Out criticism

If you look at the revision history, you'll notice that I soon reverted my edit as I saw that the criticism was not sourced. I may have reverted to versions that had the criticism after that, but I wasn't very experienced then and I was siding the the person who seemed to be more experienced. Now I agree that the section should be removed unless it can be cited by reliable sources. Belasted (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the issue only lasted a day, if that, before it WAS handled much better by the savior AuburnPilot as you can see in this diff. Tom Danson still insisted on reinserting the dubious material later on, but after looking at his talkpage, I noticed that he's apparently not the best editor in history. Belasted (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: stop right now

First, Dear Ricky, I asked you if I could post this thread, waited for more than half a day, but you didn't reply or give any indication that you noticed my message, although you were online.

Second, I already said that I didn't see at the Croat article that 12 version revert, which shows that it wasn't Rjecina that introduced the false information in the first place. But that doesn't excuse him why he was reinserting the wrong numbers circa 5 times, claiming vandalism, while he didn't revert the original edit that introduced the false information. The "vandals" he was reverting were in fact correcting the numbers. He also wrote in an edit summary that the sources confirmed the inflated false numbers

Third, I don't see how the Coloman article is explained. Could you please enlighten me?

Furthermore, these issues cannot be seen at glance, but only if someone looks into the sources, which I would guess 90% of the editors do not do.--Bizso (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC

All users involved in personal union discussion are invited to RFC on Talk:Pacta conventa (Croatia)--Rjecina (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The key word in that sentence is the conquest (of Croatia):

But it is equally true that the conquest of Croatia transformed Hungary into a major power in the region.

The debate partly is about whether Croatia was conquered or accepted the reign of King of Hungary voluntarily. Squash Racket (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday I added new material at Croatia in personal union with Hungary, I think it clarifies a few things. At this point I don't know whether we need an article like that, because already its title seems to be a bit POV. Squash Racket (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We may drop the other paragraphs into the article if the first one emphasizes all the insecurities surrounding the alleged agreement. For example "It started the Union of Croatia and Hungary that would last until 1918" is clearly the Croatian historical narrative. Squash Racket (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Playground (Louis! Album)

Louis (artist) is obviously not the same person as the Louis! mentioned in the article. So I tagged this article for speedy deletion under criterion A9. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. Shamwow86 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ten-string guitar

Thank you for your recent edits on the 10-string guitar and removal of florid, unsourced claims made by editor Andrewa. I have been attempting to maintain only scholarly, verifiable references on the 10-string guitar articles, but have no been accused of harrassement by Andrewa for pointing out his breach of WP:LINKSTOAVOID by linking to yahoo groups, myspace, and pages known to contain factually inaccurate and misleading statements. Since I discussed this with Andrewa multiple times before, on and off wikipedia and even in person, I cannot keep good faith about the fact that he continues to link to pages that equate 4 resonances on the guitar with 8 resonances (as if there's no difference). So I am accused of harrassing him in the hopes of banning me from wikipedia so he can continue to express his POV. WOuld appreciate your support since we seem to be on the same page about the unscholarly language and referencing that has been going on on the 10-string guitar pages. Please see this link if you are willing to vote against banning me for simply trying to uphold some semblence of academic credibility on wikipedia: [22] Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

PS. I note you have already expressed the thought of a ban with reference to contents problems in the article. But please note: the articles on 10-stringed guitars, as they stand now, are the total re-writes by Andrewa. I have just recently come back to wikipedia (about 2 days ago) in an attempt to clean them up. I would like to work on these articles so that they contain only scholarly, thoroughly referenced and verifiable text with nothing that is in breach of wikipedia's policies. It is Andrewa who wrote the "peacock" language you removed from the article and did not reference reliable sources. Please don't confuse me with the wrong editor! Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ricky, I appreciate your comments on my talk page. If you look back to the history further you will find a much older version of the MAIN "Ten-string guitar" article (not the new one started by Andrewa with the absurdly long title) at Ten-string guitar. There I had better references and was working on improving it when Andrewa appeared and created the OTHER article whose history you now refer to.

I am in the process of improving both the old and the new article now. Removing links was just one step. I'll soon add more reliable references to paper sources in journals. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

False claims of "bullying" Andrewa: New Proof

Plase note that the allegations made by Andrewa are false and it is not the first time he has made false allegations against me. (See this false allegation made against www.tenstringguitar.info here [23]. (The link is relevant, does not simply promote a site, and does not link to a discussion group, myspace or facebook - even though that is what it is accused of.)

The fact is, I repeatedly made Andrewa aware of misinformation he was linking to (for example, here on a yahoo forum on 25 February [24] and here we have Andrewa responding [25]). Proof that he was aware of the misinformation. So there is no reason to justify good faith or entertain the notion that he is simply unaware of the factually inaccurate link he posted here [26] (in the References, at the bottom), then never removed, and then defended as containing no inaccuracies on 2 March, here [27].

Since we have proven that there was no reason for good faith, no reason to assume the defence of misinformation was unintentional, there is also no justification in calling it an "attack", "harrassment" or "bullying" that I have called for other editors to oversee his conduct and note the multiple breaches of policy. (I'm not au fait enough with wikipedia to be able to list them like Andrewa does, but I'm sure the claims of harrassment and breach of policy can be equally reversed in the other direction.)

Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging source References

Hi Ricky. You reverted one of my edits here [28]. I think that merging these sources on to one reference helps the readability of the article. Having separate links is making the references become very disorganized. Would you mind if I undid your revert? In Citer (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Hi Ricky. Sorry to bother you again in such short amount of time. I am nearly ready to redirect but I want your opinion on the AOY page so far. Do you think all AOY articles are ready to be redirected now? In Citer (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

One last thing, you might want to know about this discussion going on here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/General_Forum. Since you've been involved in the AOY article, I'd like to hear your view In Citer (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Motley Moose

Hey, I made some editing changes to that page, hopefully they addresses your concerns; let me know if it's better. Thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brian Giovannini

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Brian Giovannini, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Notability not verified. All Google hits for ""Brian Giovannini" "postage due"" appear to be mirrors of the Wikipedia article, or self-published sources such as wikis. The impressive number of mirrors is due to the article's creation date: 2003...

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Edcolins (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Pacta Conventa

Like always I don't agree with you. 1) First he has reverted and my answer have been adding of another source+statement. 2) Second he has reverted because of my grammar. I have changed grammar. 3) He has reverted again and now first time I have reverted. 4) His number 4 revert and my number 2 revert. --Rjecina (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Union in English

Does the phrase "union" refer both to real union and personal union in English? In this case your suggestion, Croatian union with Hungary would be neutral I think. Squash Racket (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're right. Those who say it was a 14th century forgery also say the document reflected 14th century realities, not the 12th century situation.
I wish the Library of Congress had a proper country study on Croatia, so we could just follow their timeline, but their study on the former Yugoslavia discusses most of the Croatian history in one block titled "The Croats and Their Territories". Squash Racket (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Jon & Kate Plus 8

http://tlc.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=2.15585.55956.35599.x&start=40

The last two episode of Jon & Kate Plus 8 haven't been switched around yet, why not? 70.24.233.37 (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You have new messages

Hello, Ricky81682. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

April 2009

Darren M Jackson

On the above page, The user Theserialcomma keeps reverting archived pages, I thing he as a motive to remove or discredit the artcile via the talk page, I have tried to archive but he just enters into a edit war, I have not Quit or closed my account, the discussion is old and should be archived, but im sick of this guy edit warring--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The guy is a complete trouble maker, take a look at his talk page he is p*ssing alot of editors off, people like him soon get what coming and he will get barred, my suggestion is don't edit war, let him shoot himself in the foot, which he will do, in the short time he has been on wikipedia he has upset a lot of editors, --Diamonddannyboy (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in doing what I did and it does not break WP:Talk, you can see what the guy is like, I was defending you--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are you warning me... I will not strike any laugage, has there was nothing rude said, only truth see GOOD FAITH, there is a lot mention on the talk page about me, and not the article, did you warn them to, I see in your messages on the talk page you agree it could be archived and that the guy is edit warring with you, so I was agreeing with you, now you turned on me...I don't care about being blocked for a week two weeks or for ever, I am trying to make it clearer for the good of wikipedia, the article has been up for nearly two years with good reliable sourses which have now been removed, also fighters mag is a reliable source, see previous ADF and archived talk.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

OK

what does the Darren M Jackson page have to do with me, yet Theserialcomma mention I have quit and also Ive been blocked, which is rubbish, so have you warned Theserialcomma for saying crap about me not on my talk page, im trying make a point good for one good for another. So don't threathen me with a block for what he has already done, or is it a different rule for him, I have checked his page, can't see the same warning--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)