User talk:John Quincy Adding Machine/Nov2008

Hi Hexagon

Hi Hexagon. Just wanted to point out to you the constant VANDALISM that is done by the user and a croatian nationalist-Ivan Stambuk on many of the article pages regarding South SLavic languages, Srbocroatian language, etc. Besides vandalising some of the discussion pages, where he and his mate-'Ceha', having NO ARGUMENTS to argue, - constantly erase some well known facts about those topics, they often argue using an offensive voice to everyone who doesn't agree with them on wikipedia. It seems like Ivan Stambuk and 'Ceha' are 2 lonely fighters for some irrational nationalistic lies about the South Slavic languages, constantly fighting with the rest of the world, ha, ha. He (Ivan Stambuk) is also creating some ridiculous and partial maps showing only a half of the Shtokavian speaking area (the other half is spread through Serbia and Montenegro) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtokavian_dialect , or trying to camouflage the factual state of the close ties within the Central South Slavic system (language) at the templates featured in the articles about any of the South Slavic languages and dialects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbo-Croatian_language

Recently he (Ivan Stambuk), or some of his few supporters (very possibly -Ante Perkovic, also a cro-nationalist, with no tie to reality:)) ) erased a recent post from a friend of mine, a Croat who wrote some factual things about SerboCroatian language that Ivan Stambuk and Ante Perkovic are unsuccessfully trying to hide or minimize, on the discussion page of the article of SerboCroatian Language. That malicious and pathetic behavior by these 2-3 users openly sends a message of hatred and separatism, and it is non-acceptable on wikipedia pages. Although they (Ivan Stambuk and Ante Perkovic) have been BANNED many times, ha, ha (We remember You've banned Ivan Stambuk last time 2 weeks ago:)) ) it seems like they've not learned their lesson well. Please, if you can, do something to stop this VANDALISM by Ivan Stambuk and Ante Perkovic on the above mentionned wikipedia articles and discussion pages, and if necessary, please BAN them for a longer time, so they won't damage wikipedia with their lies and misinformations. Their senseless cro-nationalism is the last thing wikipedia and the world needs; they may only keep it to their isolated circles of their fewer and fewer supporters. Thank you very much and greetings to you. Best Regards, 24.86.116.250 (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

24.86.116.250

Hi,

I think I've been fair and lenient in the case of 24.86.116.250's abusive and disruptive behaviour. Before the block s/he:

• has been given the benefit of the doubt
• has been given a few warnings
• never took any notice and continued disruptive and abusive behaviour

A user complained about 24.86.116.250 behaviour. 24.86.116.250 has no editorial record (no edits in the article space disregarding 3 edits from 2007 on separate subjects), has been hostile to other editors and not constructive.

Wikipedia is not for furthering someone's agenda and non-constructive discussions.

I think the block and its length was appropriate in these circumstances. He never complained about the block him/herself. If s/he continues her/his behaviour s/he's risking another block. Not views but behaviour is the problem.

Kpjas (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Kpjas, as I remember, I regularly got back to your warnings with mostly appologetic notes. With English being my second language, it's not so easy for me to adress all your options for a complain or explanation of the dispute. Sometimes it takes time to formulate the right sentence with the right words to complain or go into further discussions and explanations. And I might not always have enough time for doing all that. I'd rather not complain or go with short notes, than to write something that would sound funny and vague. Also, I would ask you to pay more attention to what I say in my edits and discussions, because the behavior I present in it is much better that the behavior that Ivan Stambuk or any of his 'group' does. At least I go with facts and arguments, which they never have. Sorry, but in an extent of my ability, I won't allow the croatian nationalistic POV to infiltrate on wikipedia. They can have theirown isolated 'croatian wikipedia', which is mostly based on lies and misinterpretations of the facts, but wherever I see a misleading information regarding any linguistic or other well known fact, which is 'poisoned' by this cro-nationalistic group, I will react and try to correct the facts. Please, try to concentrate more on what I point out in my discussions and see what demages and non-accepable changes they've done to the templates, maps and even some of the texts concerning Serbocroatian language, Shtokavian dialect, South Slavic languages, etc. It has to stop, they've been stopped many times before and with appropriate intervetions they will be stopped again, because it's ruining wikipedia as a reliable source of informations. Regards.

My best regards to you Hexagon1, as well. Thanks, 24.86.116.250 (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

24.86.116.250, I've left a comment on your User Talk: page, and you should answer on your interlocutor's talk page to be heard. Kpjas (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Babel box

Thank you for taking the trouble to request a translation of your user page on cy to Welsh. Since your user page will now contain bilingual content were you thinking of including a Babel box with cy-0 on it on your cy user page, or just a statement that you don't speak Welsh? That would ensure that users aren't confused about whether you can speak Welsh and then leave messages for you in Welsh. Regards, Lloffiwr (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Hexagon1

I noticed your note on hr wiki and here is translation into Croatian (just copy and paste):

"Zdravo! Ukoliko mi želite ostaviti poruku i želite da je pročitam što prije, onda vas molim da to uradite na mojoj stranici na Engleskoj wikipediji.

Bye --Armchoir (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Translation

No worries. I have time for my friends. Cześć! Jeśli chcesz zostawić mi wiadomość, szybciej do mnie dotrze jeżeli zostawisz ją na angielskiej Wikipedii. - Darwinek (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, check this map.

Hi Hexagon1. Reading randomly some articles on wikipedia, I saw this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Slavic_languages_2000s.png of the division of Slavic languages, which South Slavic division doesn't make any sense. It's non-acceptable separating so called Croatian language from Serbian and Bosnian, the later two being put together. They:-Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian standards of the Serbocroatian or Croatoserbian language are always put together, because they represent ONE language. I can think of who might be involved in this:)), that's probably the guy that has been banned many times from editing WP, and who was recently arguing in a very uncivilized manner with me, (and with you as well, so that you banned him), defending some delusions he has about the Serbocroatian language. (Please check my talk page if you want to see this). As I respect the manners of editing WP, and shouldn't change any of the maps, edits or templates until I register as a full member, I would ask you to take a look at the pointed map and revert it to the right one, which shows the proper division of the South Slavic languages, and which can be found at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbo-Croatian_languages

Thank you very much and Best Regards;24.86.116.250 (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What's up?

Just thought I'd drop by and ask how life is going. So, how is life going? The Dominator^Talk_Edits 17:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I haven't used instant messaging software in years and don't remember my accounts on anything so I'd have to create new ones. I just downloaded ICQ for a relative that's visiting so I might create an account there if you have one. Btw, how'd you feel about the Obama victory? Everybody in my school was ecstatic for reasons neither I nor they comprehend, but I was myself glad Obama took it over the Republicans, Sarah Palin my ass. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 06:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you going through the same phase I am? I started to rant for hours whenever somebody mentions a controversial political topic, then again, I've always done that to a degree. I've picked up the anti-religion topic now, I'm surprised I haven't been kicked out of my school yet, with me constantly denouncing God and all. On that subject, I found a funny cartoon a few days ago but had no atheists around me to share it with: [1]. I dunno how practical it would be to instant message though, what with the nearly (17?) hour time difference; I'm going to bed. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 06:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So I got an ICQ account: 464212064. I read through that wiki, cool stuff. The bad thing for me about reading Atheist stuff is it makes me want to argue a theist (or punch one in the face), but nobody around here cares enough. There's that pop-culture self-label "agnostic" going around, but it's progress, I have much more respect for people who call themselves "agnostics" or even "deists" than those who call themselves "Christians" or "Muslims". People seem to think I'm racist for denouncing Islam and Judaism as well as Christianity. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 05:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Civility warning

Please don't accuse other editors, editing in good faith, of vandalism, as you did here: [2], [3]. This is a violation of WP:NPA/WP:AGF and related policies. Please discuss issues calmly at talk, and if you revert, please avoid offensive edit summaries. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Szopen's edits don't look like vandalism; reverting them under such a claim is much closer to that and thus I revert such uncivil reverts by default. Please continue to discuss things on the talk in good faith, and if you revert, use civil and informative edit summaries.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Zaolzie, what's vandalism etc

As a friendly reminder, bunch of quotes from different wikipedia guidelines:

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is". (despite MULTIPLE WARNINGS).

"Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not >>vandalism<< and should not be dealt with as such." (note that I TRIED to come to agreement when I was making edits, see below)

"Content disputes are not vandalism. Wikipedia defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions. Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil unless there is genuine vandalism, that is, a deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopedia, not a simple difference of opinion"

I still have no idea why you claimed you called my sources "ahistorical", "biased" and you doubted their veracity. In talk I wrote Benesz was first to propose Zaolzie to Poland. However, as a result of discussion, inmy edit I have restrained from inserting phrases like "Benesz wanted to give Poland Zaolzie". Because of the discussion I have formulated the sentences to be as vague as were proposals in Benes letter. While in talk page I argued that it is clear from context that Benes had to talk about Zaolzie, in my edits I clearly wrote that he only "proposed border changes", respecting the opinions in discussion. When you reverted it, in third edit, I "scaled down to well established facts" - I further changed my edit to conform to your position in talk, removing everything which could be called someone's opinion. I have no idea why you called me "egoist", what part of my edits were "supplementary nonsense", why you said "actual source" only when I posted THIRD book to support my edits (not counting the piece from 1938 by journalist).

There are only two possibilities. Either you were right, and hence you will be able to finally present coherent critique of my edits and sources (saying all it was nonsense based on ahistorical source is not coherent critique). I will be happy then to learn then something new from this discussion and therefore, become better wikipedia contributor. Second possibility is that you were wrong, maybe you simply have not read or not understood my edits, and in that case I would love to hear that you will admit that. Szopen (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)