Jump to content

User talk:Ricky81682/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

What the hell happened to the discussion page at Sportsbook.com??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.45.204 (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Image:88--xp.png

Just a note, Ricky, that image was uploaded for use in the page on 'conservipedia', it was taken off there page about 'world religions'. It gives an example of there, less then great, world outlook. They've since removed it, and I really couldent find a way to fit it in anyway. So. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micov (talk • contribs) 07:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

How to get that image

Could you find me one such image available in fickr?. --Crazyguy2050 (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Notification of AN/I

Thanks. I just noticed it. Sigh. I'll probably respond to it in the morning. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, ooks like I didn't have to, most it being resolved in the dead of night and early morning. That's what I get for going to business meetings bright and early that last until lunchtime. I guess I will mosey over later and see if the anon wants to try DR or simply use editor avoidance. Have a good day, and thanks for the notification. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Unprotection of Craig Charles

Hi Ricky, may I ask why you unprotected this article? It's been under semi-protection for a long time for a reason... there's a very persistent vandal who has been targeting the article for years, and was targeting the article within the last 20 edits. ~Eliz81(C) 03:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're mistaken. The protection policy explicitly allows permanent semi-protection.
Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are:
Given that both those apply to this long term vandal who fixates on this one article and is still active and uses dynamic IPs, unprotecting the article is a wholly bad idea. One Night In Hackney303 03:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reprotecting Ricky! It is unusual circumstances to be sure. This vandal guy is also affectionately known as 'jamjamjam' and 'the jam vandal', just in case you run into him in the future. All the best, ~Eliz81(C) 03:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I was considering a long term abuse report at one stage, but thought it was probably best not to per WP:DENY. There's Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nam3witha3init (which are basically confirmed socks anyway, not suspected), and various IPs registered to either Flinders University or what I presume is a home ISP. Selection dating back to early 2007:
There's more prior to 2007 as well. Other than semi-protection, there's really not much can be done really. I'll leave a brief explanation on the talk page for future reference though. One Night In Hackney303 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See...

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Admin Ricky81682 (talk · contribs)--Svetovid (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, From AndyCook

Thank you very much =]. Hope to see you around here, thanks for all the help.--AndyCook (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Policy on album covers

thanks for the tip. i posted on the Wikipedia talk:Non-free content page about a week or so ago... there was already an 'album cover' header... but when i returned to see if anything has yet changed, i found the page lacking the aforementioned section. how would i go about finding it, or finding relevant policy guidelines (i.e., if the policy has changed... it seemed like a VERY unpopular policy, perhaps these people have come to their senses and i can undo that schmuck's edits to the fleshcrawl page? get everything back to normal?).

thank you

AeturnalNarcosis (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:ACP-EU logo.png

You have CSDd this article erroneously I think. There is no claim to "fair use". Permission for usage is clearly stated in the Summary and the licensing link. Please remove the tag and be a little more attentive. --Triwbe (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The licensing page says "reproduction is authorised, provided that the source is acknowledged." which has been done. WP:FU says "If material does have a copyright, it may only be copied or distributed under a license (permission) from the copyright holder, or under the doctrine of fair use". Since permission IS explicitly granted, no fair use rational is necessary. --Triwbe (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for fixing my page. but how did you know about me?I'mOnBase 17:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Sorry you had to a trivial task for me though... But thanks a lot. I've learned my lesson about using offsite hosted scripts... Yamakiri TC § 04-14-2008 • 02:31:53

Hi, I have a question or two

I don't understand what more I am supposed to do about that image. Also, has there been some kind of arbitration involving me? I never formally requested any. It looks like there might have been a decision or something made, but I don't understand all that. I thought I was just doing what is within my rights and obligations as a Wikipedia user. I didn't ever complain to anyone about A Sniper, even though he kept messaging me and basically harassing me with numerous messages making all kind of accusations from sock puppetry to single purpose account to trolling to vandalism. He had a very nasty attitude throughout all of this and I basically just began to ignore him. I thought that's what I was supposed to do. If you look at all my correspondence I never took on the nasty tone that he did. I assume you read the following discussion. I thought I stated my case very well in it.

Eric Greif 0. A Sniper (talk · contribs) 0. Eric Greif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 0. Death (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 0. Morbid Saint (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 0. Mötley Crüe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) A user, A Sniper, that has identified himself [34] [35] [36] [37] as a former manager and producer for the bands Death (band), Morbid Saint, Mötley Crüe is continually editing the related articles. I have left a If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. tag on the users talk page, but would appreciate other editors following up on this. dissolvetalk 21:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC) anyone can say anything about 'who they are' - that doesn't make it so. I have faithfully edited on a lot of pages (musical and religious), usually finding consensus on issues with the other usual editors. A Sniper (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Hello A Sniper. I don't perceive any bad effects from your editing, and the COI rules do allow you to participate on these articles, though with some caution. I'd still like you to say more about this edit, if you would. It seems possible that you are adding information to articles based on your own personal knowledge of events. Since you're an experienced WP editor, you're probably aware of our need for references. I'm concerned that you say, in the edit summary, that it would be 'vandalism' to remove the material. But we really don't have any reference for that information, do we? EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Hello EdJohnston. RE: the edit that you've referred to, the vandalism wasn't in the removing of the material but was in the replacing of the material with all-caps stating that a particular company was a bootlegger. I don't even know, frankly, if I was the editor who originally placed this material there, and that wasn't my reason for undoing the edit anyway. This edit you've pointed out was to undo what appeared to be personal anger by the editor against that record label. You'll also see that the same user added spanish-language notices against that record label, which I also removed. Just to make sure the edit was a good one, I checked with Google and saw a couple of references for this particular topic: [38][39][40][41]. Thanks, A Sniper (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC) It is a bit coincidental Dissolve that just after your COI notice, Single-purpose account Jackmantas was created and started slashing the Eric Greif article to bits. Is that operating under good faith? A Sniper (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC) I would imagine that the other editor is editing the article because it appears to be an autobiography [42] that lacks verifiable inline citations of reliable sources and as such, may not meet Wikipedias core policies of Neutral point of view and No original research. I hope you'll re-read Assume good faith, as accusing an editor of sock puppetry [43] with no evidence is not an act of good faith, please see Please do not bite the newcomers. dissolvetalk 15:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for Jackmantas inviting him to join this discussion. I see plenty of material for discussion in the points various people have made above, without the need to immediately jump into the review of people's behavior. Referencing for our articles on musical groups is not always very good. One option is to try to get a consensus to remove all the unsourced material. Temporarily, that will leave the articles impoverished, but if these people and groups are famous, somebody must have covered them. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Response by Jackmantas: Thank you Ed, for inviting me to this discussion. You are precisely correct in your statements. I am editing the article because it appears to be an autobiography. I see very little verifiable information on the page and I also see very little neutrality. Most, if not all of the links that the creator has provided as supposed references are interviews where the subject of the article is simply making claims about himself. In my mind this does not meet the minimum criteria of Wikipedia's core policies. Furthermore, I see a serious conflict of interest with this and other articles that Mr. Grief is mentioned in. It has already been revealed that Username: A Sniper and Eric Grief are actually the same person. He has admitted that himself. So, we have an individual who has created a page about himself and wrote basically everything on it and provided the images on it. (Autobiography) He has also inserted information about himself on other pages, (Motley Crue, London and Death for starters.) So it would seem we have a user who has placed unverified information on Wikipedia about himself in what would appear to be an effort to make himself appear more notable than he actually is. So we go back to the issue of whether this article is about a noteworthy enough person to justify having a Wikipedia Page. On top of all this, he is a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. So it would appear that in his accusations of vandalism and sock puppetry toward me he was abusing his trusted position as a member of Wikipedia volunteer staff to further his own agenda. I feel like I am doing the best job I can to do my part as a newcomer that wants to help out and is feeling good about doing just that. Might I add that I have always admired and marveled at Wikipedia. The amount of information contained is absolutely staggering. I had always heard that anyone could contribute to Wikipedia and while that is totally cool and innovative, at the same time it creates an environment in which widespread abuse could potentially run rampant if left unchecked. It feels good to be able to help out, and I look forward to learning all I can about how I can be of service to the Wikipedia community in the future. That is all I have to say for now. Thank you again for the opportunity to join this discussion. Jackmantas (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as the Sock puppetry goes, If you check the history of the sites that he is mentioned in, you will see that there are user accounts that were created and they only performed maybe 3 or 4 actions which involved adding information about A sniper or removing flagging from the Eric Grief site etc.

As far as me moving to the Death site to do edits there, I came upon the problems with that and other articles that link out of Eric Grief, which is a perfectly natural progression to me. I'm sure I will focus on many other sites that have nothing to do with A sniper in the future, I was just trying to clean up the problems that I saw, and there were a lot of them. If he decides to take it personally, isn't that his problem? BTW I originally stumbled onto the Eric Grief article through a natural progression of links starting at You tube. It basically became very apparent to me what was going on and I decided to step up to the plate and do some editing this time. ( I had seen problems with other Wikipedia entrys before and done nothing about them.) Sure, yes I just tried to delete the whole page at first, but that is before I knew the value of responsible editing. ( just like is described in your instructional posts that talk about "not biting the newcomers" and such.) Mr Grief chose to focus on what I did in the very beginning in an effort to make me look bad and totally ignored the many constructive edits that I have done since then.


That is all for now, Thanks for your time.

Jackmantas (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ricky81682, I want to thank you for your constructive edits. Of course I disagree with our new Wiki colleague above. I found it odd that, minutes after Dissolve placed a COI notice on my talk page that a 'new' user account suddenly attempted to blank an article (with rather bold explanations and without any talk page discussion), and then moved on to make slashes at another site I frequently edit at (which was reverted by another usual editor). I could only guess that this was trolling, and the single-purpose account reference appeared valid. One example was to paste a section over to the Greif article for no reason other than to add the word 'homosexual' to the article which the user falsely attributed to Greif's father. In addition, the user has made assumptions based on inferences. All I want to do is continue editing and making sure everything on here has valid sources. There were bad links that the user identified that STOOD and I did NOT revert, and he/she made a good call for a header reference within Chuck Schuldiner - I fixed the referencing. In any case, thanks again. A Sniper (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Schuldiner

With all due respect, this article is about a deceased person and is hence not a biography of a living person. I am also not the creator of the article and only one of several regular contributors. Thanks, A Sniper (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Greif

Your re-build of the article looks good. Please note that some of the online references have Greif misspelled as Grief or use the producer's former nickname of 'Eric "Griffy" Greif' (or misspelled as 'Eric "Griffy" Grief'). A Sniper (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. A timeline would be as follows: Motley Crue, Greg Leon, etc. (early 80s); Greenworld Records period, including Vyper, etc. (mid-80s); death metal period, including managing Chuck Schuldiner & Death and production of records by other heavy artists such as Morbid Saint, Invocator, Viogression, Accidental Suicide; etc., as well as co-promoter of Milwaukee Metalfest and anti-censorship activism (like in link to TV spot) ('87-90); latter music career period, from London to Aeon Spoke and Sugarmonkey ('90-05); then law stuff following final lawsuit with Schuldiner and start of legal career (mid-90s & beyond). Hope that helps. A Sniper (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome

Happy to be of assistance. Yeah, 1300 images is more than I had expected in that section. I think we need to add some gigantic, multicolor, possibly flashing warnings to the upload screen that if they don't select a licensing template their image will be deleted, or something. Anyway, good luck dealing with all of those; there's a reason I don't hang around in the image-related areas of Wikipedia overly much. If you ever want me to run the program again leave me a note; I think I've learned enough from actually running it once to work out all the kinks for any future runs.--Dycedarg ж 07:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Jackmantas

As you're aware of the above user, please note that the tit-for-tat editing has now descended to personal attacks. Please see user's contributions, some specific malicious diatribes found at [1]. I reverted some of the overt violations of WP:Etiquette, including a constant barrage at my talk page (which I've now archived). I'm trying to avoid any engagement now. If you do find evidence of trolling or abuse, I would appreciate if you could let this new user know that talk pages, especially for articles, are not meant to be a soapbox for innuendo, personal attacks and abuse. Thanks, A Sniper (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hungary/Slovakia

Hi, I'm trying to sort through the complex disputes involving the Hungarian and Slovakian editors. I see that you've dealt with them a bit. Would you like to help out at User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment? It's a centralized discussion point that I've set up, to try and get a handle on the situation. I'd appreciate a couple more uninvolved admins helping out, if you have time.  :) --Elonka 12:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I hadn't heard back from you, so just wanted to doublecheck. Is your lack of response because you are not interested, or because you're still thinking about it? Thanks, Elonka 11:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries! I definitely understand that this particular group of editors is very time-intensive. If you have other projects on your plate, just feel free to remove your name from the "admin" section on my page (or let me know and I'll remove it on my next update). And best wishes with your own stuff!  :) --Elonka 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI

MiszaBot III, only passes through once a day. So the 1 hour parameter really only means 24 hours. It is really a sorry state that so many editors complain about nothing. And yep, I do read the messages but only choose to respond if I do something wrong. Otherwise it is don't bother me with your pettiness. --pete 00:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that was meant as there not your --pete 00:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

their --pete 01:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by actual dispute? --pete 01:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)?

Re: My Endangered Image List

Okay, Ricky81682. Here's my complete image list. I would like to point out that there are some images listed there that I'm okay with having deleted, and some that I'd rather wait until the articles they were intended for come back(if they come back), before I request that they're saved. ----DanTD (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind if I put that disputed fair-use image tag on some of the others that are threatened? ----DanTD (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Vilnius letter

This article, which you have edited, has been nominated for AfD. Feel free to weigh in with your comments. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


No content in Category:Category-Class PlayStation articles

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Category-Class PlayStation articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Category-Class PlayStation articles 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:Category-Class PlayStation articles, 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) 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Template:Using fb

Well, I was trying to create the Gibraltar First Division Football Template modeling the one in Faroe Islands and after creating it I saved it; however i thought that i accidentally put the fb:start fb:end stuff on the Gibraltar Club page, so i deleted it. Later when i checked i realized that i undid the wrong thing, User: Boguslavmandzyuk already undid my edit. I did not delete in intentionally; when i deleted it, i just thought it was on the Gibraltar United Club page and that i accidentally added it on when adding the template, thus deleted it. My mistake. I didn't even realize it, since i went on after that. But thanks for asking and bringing it to my attention. --Shustfan (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:album

Hey, I see you've readded the importance rating to the template recently. Fact is, until about two months back, when the template was converted to pp-template (that's what the edit history says), the template did not have an importance rating and hence now there are thousands of talk pages that have this template with the parameter empty. In any case, having an Importance rating for a genre-wide project like WP:album is incorrect because it is nigh impossible to rate one album (say of Hip-hop) higher than another (say of the blues). Importance ratings only carry meaning within a specific genre. Please change it back, thanks indopug (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Nair

Mind weighing in here? You can look at a diff to see what Relata refero wants to remove. In particular, I don't understand his insistence on removing the Samurai Comparison. I went through a lot of trouble to find citations from Google Books that make the same comparison. Finally, there is the issue of Nair marriage. While I agree with him that the material is uncited, the description of the ritual is common knowledge and is described exactly as it happens. He claims Wikipedia is not a collection for ritual, but the information is not presented as such. I believe it is perfectly enclopedic material from a anthropological perspective. The same goes for the stratification of Nairs described in the Travancore State Manual. Although not prevalent today, it does provide an idea of Nair stratification from a historical perspective. He claims that the 1905 reference is simply "too old". Nothing new has been written on the subject to my knowledge (this, coming from Google [Book] searches). At any rate, your attention would be appreciated. Thanks! --vi5in[talk] 22:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm only getting one side of this debate, but I, for one, would be fascinated to know about Nayar marriage format, for many reasons. One, in particular, is that I'm writing a dissertation on ancient love poetry, and some of the most ancient we have is in Tamil. It has characteristics comparable at some points with Mesopotamian conventions and so bears on the Hebrew which is my focus. The Hebrew is actually much closer to the Egyptian, generally speaking, but that's another matter.
However, another line of enquiry in the literature is that of traditional middle eastern wedding ceremonies, which include standard liturgies called Wasf.
In addition to all this, social conceptions of gender are often most evident in beliefs regarding marriage, which are either stated explictly, or indicated symbolically in wedding ceremonies.
As I said, I, for one, comb literature for sources of reliable documentation of such practices. It exists and is valuable across disciplines of study.
So, my two cents. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sexual dimorphism

Thanks for adding the ref tag in this article. If you check back, you will see these references fell within a verbatim quote. As a rule, I use an ellipsis if removing irrelevant text from quotes. If a quote contains a footnote worth citing, I quote this separately, citing "p. 73, n3.", for example.

I expect you overlooked the quotation marks. I haven't reverted, 'cause I thought you'd probably agree and not mind doing it yourself.

A slightly more time consuming alternative would be to add another note after the ref for the quote. Something like <ref>Buss cites himself and Cite1 and Cite2 in support of ...</ref>.

Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If the points above don't make sense to you, don't worry, it's a fussy MoS thing, I'm not fussed myself or I'd revert.
As for relevance, the citations are relevant to an old edit war regarding whether humans have high sexual dimorphism or low sexual dimorphism. They specifically address that issue. They also explain why there'd be an edit war, it's touch and go. Opinion is divided, some think a) low sexual dimorphism because they think human males prefer teenage brides, others think b) moderate sexual dimorphism because they think human males prefer open relationships with females in their early twenties. At least that's how evolutionary psychologists see it with current data.
Is this relevant? To my mind published summary of academic views on degree of human sexual dimorphism are best placed in an article on Sexual dimorphism, in the In humans section. Which is where they are. Perhaps they should be in the Human article in a Sexual dimorphism section. Perhaps they should be in both. Perhaps we need to expand the discussion. I'm happy to wait and see.
Thanks for the Wiki-gnoming work, though. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

Hi, I received a notice of deletion for several images. I have made the proper changes. I hope they are suitable. Libro0 (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to comply however I am not sure how easy it would be to find a generic card or logo. It just seemed the most sensible thing to do - putting a sample card. Is there a possibility of acquiring permission for the use of the photos? Libro0 (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Bridget Moynahan

The following is all I can find about the deletion of the Bridget Moynahan image that I think is the one I uploaded.

"05:46, 29 February 2008 Ricky81682 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Bridget moynahan int.jpg" ‎ (CSD I1: Redundant to another image: Commons commons:Image:Bridget Moynahan.jpg)"

But that other image, said to be in Commons, is not there. What is the story?? --Dumarest (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

But that link also goes to an image that is not present. --Dumarest (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

24 Season 7

Thanks for doing this, I hadn't noticed that it was still in that class, even though it's been rated B class. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And once again, thanks for doing this. Say, would you be interested in joining the project? :D You would be most welcome :) Sorry, but we don't have any fancy invite template, just text. :( Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, thanks anyway, and keep up the good work :D Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Salah PROD

Not that I don't agree with this PROD, but you'd be better off taking it to AfD. I already tried PROD once with no success. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Banned user Hdayejr

In regards to your edit on my talk page, the ANI discussion has been removed, so I responded on my talk page. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sportsbook.com edit war/spammer

this guy User:Fadeintoyou still isn't listening and seems hell bent on whatever his agenda is. How about a block? I'm finished trying to reason with him until he calms down. Thanks. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Justify your edits. You're the one breaking rules, not me.Fadeintoyou (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

lol this guy is hell bent on being a pain in the ass. I love his not-so-subtle ripoff of your username. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Rumors?

According to the sources this is a fact, not a rumor. Of course no academic books deal with that, so I don't understand your point. Even if you don't trust the largest news portals in Hungary, you may trust this reference. English sources don't really follow her anyway since she's not playing so much (in February she retired if I remember well). Squash Racket (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Squash Racket (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The comment about "English sources don't really follow her anyway" is almost identical to the post added by an anonymous IP account here in February 2008. Coincidence? I think not. This leads me to believe that Squash Racket has known about this controversy for months, i.e., is not new to the issue. Tennis expert (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Missed that one. Well, the anon IP was too lazy to search more reliable sources (at least on the internet), but basically he/she was right and shouldn't have been reverted (adding at least one reliable source).
Ricky, could you help with this? Why doesn't the linked article contain the sentence you can find (at the top of) the search results? There is a longer version of that article (subscription/printed version)? Squash Racket (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Email harassment

[2] You can just block them from sending you emails next time. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply... Its only 24 more hours. I didn't extend the block, only kept the original end time (roughly) and enabled the email block. He's hardly been a model citizen, and a day will not kill him. If he returns to contructive editing when the block expires, well, that would be a Good Thing (tm). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Color of Friendship

Hello: I'm assuming that you saw my dispute with Cbsite about this article detailed (badly) on the Administrators' noticeboard, which led you to revise that article but keep it as a disambig page. You said in your edit comments that disambig "made the most sense", but did not respond on the Talk page to any of the discussion I and another user had posted there about why it should be a redirect, including a link to WP:Hatnotes#Two articles with the same title which says very clearly that for two articles with the same title, a redirect instead of a separate disambig page should be used. Since the entire "edit war" stemmed from Cbsite's refusal to acknowledge that guideline or explain why it shouldn't apply, your assertion that doing it otherwise "makes more sense" is not any more persuasive to me than Cbsite's persistent reverts without comment. Propaniac (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That being said, thanks for pointing out Cbsite's attempt to have _me_ reprimanded, although by the time I saw it I had to dig a bit to find the thread. I am 100% unsurprised that Cbsite didn't feel the need to let me know about it. Propaniac (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for posting on the article's Talk page; I have now reverted the article to a redirect again, although it is entirely probable that Cbsite will STILL revert it back to a disambig. What I don't understand is why in the world you would, as an administrator, make a decision between two conflicting positions without at least skimming the Talk page discussion that explains those positions; I don't believe it would be possible for you to have skimmed it without seeing that citation, which I even quoted on the Talk page itself.
I don't believe I've done a single thing wrong in this entire dispute, as far as I can tell. I saw that the article did not meet a guideline, I changed it to meet that guideline, I cited the guideline and posted extensive explanation for why that guideline exists and should be followed, I made every attempt to invite Cbsite to defend his or her position in the context of that guideline, I went out of my way to warn Cbsite that he or she could be a candidate for blocking, and then to explain the nuances of a redirect/hatnote combination when it was clear Cbsite didn't understand how it worked. Cbsite's actions have been to revert, revert, revert, first arguing that another user and I were only acting out of personal bias (which is really ironic since it's quite apparent Cbsite's motivation is to promote the article he or she wrote), and then completely ignoring all further attempts at discussion or building a consensus, and telling me to be quiet and go away, and claiming I'm harassing him or her (by offering warnings and explanations), and then to try to get me blocked for "edit warring". And when you validated Cbsite's conduct by not only affirming that Cbsite was correct, but not even offering any argument in response to the tons of justification I have provided for my own position, that Cbsite has completely ignored, that was very offensive to me.
As I said, I appreciate your publicly correcting yourself. But I would also appreciate it if, in the future, you were more careful when making a determination in "edit wars", with your decision bearing the weight of an admin, because I'm hard-pressed to see how you could have been less careful in this case. Propaniac (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
My first post on the Talk page about the issue says, at the end of the first paragraph: "This is supported by WP:Hatnotes#Two articles with the same title." Cbsite responded below that post, and then started a new topic above that one; I have no idea why. But at the bottom, below her initial response to my initial post, I referred again to the link and quoted the relevant sentence. It's true that the other user and myself didn't type out the entire anchored link every time that we referred to the guideline, but it was both cited and quoted.
I don't understand your assertion that the edit history didn't indicate that there was discussion on the Talk page, and that you assumed it was a redirect? There are three references to the Talk page in the edit history, which would seem to warrant looking at the Talk page if you were prepared to take discussion there into account. Even though I didn't specifically say so every time that I had added content to the Talk page, if you looked at it once at the time of your decision you would see everything that had been added at any point. That Cbsite decided to make it difficult to read does not make me feel less annoyed that you initially decided in her favor. (I don't need any further response on either of these points if you feel they're too minor to respond to.) Propaniac (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Cbsite has indeed reverted it to a disambig again, since I made the redirect (per your agreement) instead of you; if you could please make it a redirect to the 2000 article, I would appreciate it. If your concern is that you're not familiar enough with the articles to discern which should be the redirect target, I can point out that Cbsite has never made an argument that the 1981 article should be the target of a redirect, whereas I and the other user who commented on the Talk page have used the standards of awards, availability, and incoming links as evidence that the 2000 film is the more prominent of the two. I am really hoping that if you implement a redirect it will put this whole thing to rest. Propaniac (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, it didn't put the whole thing to rest. Should I just put this up on ANI again? I really do hate to keep bugging you about this, and I'd love to stop, but I don't know what other tactic I should take. Propaniac (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The only tactic to take is to stop being so rigid and just let this go. You are, in fact, exactly as you describe yourself on your talk page. The only one who cares about this at this point is you.Cbsite (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bobby G

Just worked out the change re Bobby G. No help required. I am currently re-writing the page into a proper Biographical account of the subject. I've seen the reversion you put up - I can do better than that, so I'll carry on with the edit and include references and citations.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I'm assuming the page will be Start class when I've finished rather than stub. I don't think the guy deserves much more than that!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


I see that you're so desperately interested in Bobby G that you keep moving one tiny piece of info. I'm not all that bothered wether it's there or not and I've got better things to do with my time than to enter into a war over it. You say it needs a source - good luck to anyone who wants to find that!!! Shouldn't that mean then that every single sentence should have a reference? So everything on every article should be deleted that doesn't have a number after it? I'll let you get on with that then.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That's all very interesting, but you can keep it. I'm not going to waste any more time writing anything for all the hassle I get. I'm going to get on with my life now and you can remove whatever you want.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Shassenfeld.jpg

So, why was the Hassenfeld image removed after so many years? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshanks (talk • contribs)

WP:AN

Thanks, I am aware of that and I am in the middle of typing my response. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

your seem kind —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshanks (talk • contribs) 08:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

WP:ANI notice

There is some strange complaint about you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mrshaba. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Right... I've initiated a complaint of my own. There are probably dozens of quality editors that have had to deal with this individual. In my opinion action is long overdue. I'm glad to see my reverts are seen as justifiable. Cheers Mrshaba (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Isis Gee

Ricky, thanks for taking interest in the issue, even if you would probably never be bothered with the singer in question, the Eurovision Song Contest or the trivialities being discussed. That said, I would be most obliged if you could keep the page on your watchlist, as User:Eurovisionman will probably try to revert your, and others' edits, even violating 3RR. Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a competition and this is a review of her performance by an experienced commentator. Isgreatestman (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ricky, I am sorry to bother you, but could you please see about the crop of new user accounts set up to edit the articles? The one new picture added is actually taken from the gossip column that Eurovisionman once pushed as a "source". I am now being reported to WP:ANI, accused of being a sockpuppet, labelled "mentally ill" by some rather rude user and the articles and their talk pages are becoming stage to a grotesque spectacle. I am really not sure how to approach all that to minimize damage while not making a huge fool of myself. Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Would have to dig out the link from edit warring, not sure if I manage before much-needed bedtime... There is also a slight chance Eurovisionman might have actually made it, as this might have all been a ploy to put links to the site in WP (which help Google rankings tremendously), but only slight. For now, checkuser seem most important to me - if it proves those actually are his sockpuppets, all else becomes less relevant. Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Found it: [3] - either Eurovisionman and/or any of his suspected sockpuppets is Mr. Andrzej Szalagyi of MWMedia (and he rather than the agency has all the rights to the photo), or we are having a copyvio here. Where can I find a template where I report that? PrinceGloria (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Ricky, I am most grateful to you for bearing with me and consistently working on bringing this rather unfortunate drama to a happy end. PrinceGloria (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that too - it was the first checkuser I was following and I was really surprised it isn't immediate. As a a matter of fact, I thought every admin has the right to checkuser... Given that sockpuppet operators are usually (at least it seems so, esp. given "our" example) rather active in their disruptive activity, I guess it is crucial for WP stability to perform well-substantiated checkusers promptly. Is there some any initiative to streamline the process you know of? PrinceGloria (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Fortune Global 500 edit war

Sorry about that. Glad it's sorted. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries, mate. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


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


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

D.J. Mbenga

Check out my new comment at the bottom of the talk page. Do you think it's time to start restoring the section now with this new source? It seems reliable enough to me. Bash Kash (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Eurovisionman

I have very rarely ventured into SSP/CU requests, so I may well be incorrect, but my review of the two accounts Eurovisionman (talk · contribs) and Isgreatestman (talk · contribs) indicated that the latter has an earlier edit history (1 edit in 2007) than the former (all May 2008). I am aware that it can be determined when accounts were created, but I thought that it is the first editing account that is generally regarded as the master account. Not a biggie, and perhaps some little learning for me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch.LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Rex Gildo

Hi! You unprotected the above article. Could you please revert the crap that has been put into it since then and reprotect it? The vandal seems to be of the insanely persistent kind:-(. It would be helpfull if you could put the article on you watchlist, I am usually not online that often, it was only coincidence that I saw what happened. Best regards! --Lamme Goedzak (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Is there maybe a list of frequentely vandalized pages one could put this page on?--Lamme Goedzak (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ricky81682, thank you for your comments and advice concerning REX GILDO. May I EXPLAIN to you as follows:

1. Myself and my family attended REX GILDO concerts and the overwhelming adulation was from screaming young GIRL fans of Rex Gildo. These girls were passionate fans of Rex Gildo's Romantic Ballads and his macho idol persona. The scenes I described were FACTS as witnessed by myself and others.

2. REX GILDO has never publicly or on the record ever stated anything about "gay" or "sodomy" but was a happily married man from 1974 to 1990.

3. LURID sexual innuendos are NOT correct, true or appropriate in this great artists page. Rex Gildo's music and films should dominate the page and his enormous attraction to millions of girls.

4. I have tried to CORRECT the "crap sexual vandalism" of people like Lamme Goedzak who seek to make lurid sexual points out of a family man, a happily married man REX GILDO who sold millions of records.

I hope you can help to put the record straight and make sure the REX GILDO Wiki page reflects the facts and the man as he was. A Multi Million Romantic Balladeer who captured the hearts of millions of girls/fans.

Thank you very much Ricky. From KaiserEuro1 1 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaiserEuro1 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Thanks for the help

Thanks! --213.40.96.218 (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I think you should have taken a course of action against another editor who has deleted the introduction to the article and re-wrote it himself in a POV style. I am not happy about this, great first impression. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Cbsite has returned

Hi: Cbsite's reverting The Color of Friendship again and cursing directly at me in the edit summary. I've already posted the issue at ANI, but just wanted to give you a heads-up since I do refer to your actions in the report. Propaniac (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Nebelwerfer attacking

Fixed;) Cam (Chat) 06:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Images you've nominated

I have no idea why you've nominated those images for deletion. The author was listed. Your canned message doesn't apply. I've removed the tags. Please talk to User:Anthere for more information on these images. Anthony (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Cover.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Cover.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Cover.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Cover.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A46 Wooley

There must of been a mix up uploading A46wooley.jpg since that that is actually the M4. anyway to Rename it? Blackwave...... (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

The ANI posting anon

I might be wrong, but I am guessing it was a fellow blocked a month or so ago for using a dynamic IP to dodge his edit history, full of warnings for incivility. Similar IP's popped up repeatedly in the Fitna (film) a few months ago, and the anon also filed an AN/I about me. TT's two preceding (and failed) ANI complaints about me pretty much indicate the guy isn't going to leave me alone, and takes a lot of offense if I don't give him the attention he appears to need. Just for a heads-up, the responding ANI's noted that while I wasn't diplomatic of folk (something I've taken pains to address since), TT was guilty of a "thin skin and a big mouth" (or words very much to that effect).
I have the most devoted fan club. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, its the same anon, back after his block. He introduced old info from the previous argument in a different article discussion here. If necessary, I can provide examples of the prior block for the IP, though it should be easy enough to find. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Stand by, I've filed the RfCU to confirm if it in fact the same blacked/banned user from before. He tried to file two AN/I's, the last of which rather backfired in his face and found him blocked for dodging admin oversight. The request for confirmation is filed here. You will also note the user's use of an attack page. In less than 2 hours, he has created two IP addresses (this one and the one he used at AN/I: 75.57.201.254). And offered almost a dozen edits, most of them against me.


As an avid Dr. Who fan the article is of interest to me - What I did was take your claims:
"Just for you: penultimate scene means it is the climax to the story. As there is another episode, it isn't that"
and:
"With respect, I went to Oxford, so i am fairly well aware of Brit English. My understanding of the word is how it is actually supposed to be used in writing. Next to last, the definition, refers to the last being the denouement of the piece, with penultimate being the climax of the story."
And compared them to your previous behavior:
"Are you seriously trying to suggest that the EU is not an NGO? ... If you consider me throwing my political science and international relations degrees at you to be derogatory, then I have to say that I am sorry you feel that way. I am not a potted plant; I know the policies of which I speak - Arcayne."
Unsupported claims of authority about a subject which are fraudulently offered in order to support ignorant pronouncements are fair to be noted.75.57.181.83 (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Charles Thomas Bolton

I posted a comment at your Charles Thomas Bolton DYK suggestion. Please visit Articles created/expanded on July 6 and provide a reply if so desired. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Charles Thomas Bolton

Updated DYK query On 12 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Thomas Bolton, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

I Change the Year in Films Stuff To Match It To A More Realistic Version

I don't think any of the editors wrote it properly. Me, I look at old books about different studios to make my estimations. I deeply also respect your request to have a need to add reliable references. So far, I have found not too many sources with lists that do not match each other. That is why I cannot add one particular resource, because many differ.Kevin j (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:House1090 case

I am User:House1090...I am not 9 or 10 and I do not want to make any more sock's thats why I asked User:CambridgeBayWeather and now you to give me another chance is in that a sign of maturity, please give me one more chance (you commented about me on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:House1090 yesterday), I just want to edit again I am sorry for any trouble I may have caused I will not make no more sock puppets, please give me 1 more chance - User:House1090 71.110.203.151 (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Spamming? I was not and I am with this IP adress so I can talk to you so I can edit, thats why I am here, I want no more sockpuppets I want edit legaly here, please help me 71.110.203.151 (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I am so sorry but I already did so, please see User Talk:House1090 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.203.151 (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Removal of General Electric Was a Complete Accident

I didn't mean to remove it. I was trying to add facts, and I guess I must have accidently erased it in the process. I never intended to do so.Kevin j (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Because There Wasn't A {{ listed Before The Words "Cite book"

That's the reason for my edit to the book reference on the Harry Warner page. Because it wasn't there, the mention of it on the reference list was written improperly. Kevin j (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Self-Publised Jetsunma Quotes

Hi,

I've responed to your request here. Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo#Specific_language

Thanks Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User Kirker

I don't remember everyone being told to stay away from each other. What's that all about? ('ve chipped into that natter about me that's taking place on some other page. Thanks for telling me. Kirker (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

Hi again. I thought I'd better let you know that you got a mention here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DIREKTOR#Quotes_in_Filipovi.C4.87_article I was replying to something DIREKTOR said in that discussion you told me about. I put it on his talk page because the whole discussion seems to have been pulled, and the link you put on my talk page no longer works. (A pity, because I was hoping someone would tell me how I could instigate a sockpuppet investigation of myself.) Regards Kirker (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ricky.
This is for your information.
Here, user Kirker speaks about certain user Ricky81632 [4] (message from 14:33, 18 August 2008):
"But don’t advise me how to behave or you start to sound like that condescending guy Ricky81632 who’s been spewing rubbish recently. (Where did he crawl out from, by the way? He’s contributed sod all to any article I’ve ever seen".
This remark "And that’s where Ricky81632 “highly suggested”..." definitely shows that he's speaking about you (two days after your message to him [5] 07:34, 14 August 2008 and on WP:ANI [6]). He speaks about you and me (since you've engaged regarding that WP:ANI). Obviously.
However, he "played nice" towards you on WP:ANI, but 2 days later he used such words.
You know the saying: "Wolf changes its hair; his temper - never".
In total, this Kirker's message from above is not the editing in the good spirit. He's showing no sign of improving. Kubura (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

I have an idea about the baseball card images. Since all of the images violate copyright, I thought it would be better to simply remove the excess and utilize an external link to an established image gallery. This would seem to be the best solution. We can avoid documentation problems and the reader will be able to view a multitude of cards instead of just a few. There are several good external links of galleries. This allows for the best application of policy in my opinion. Libro0 (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I'd Like To Mention One More Thing I Didn't Get Across Earlier

I ONLY WRITE IN CAPS TO HIGHLIGHT MY IMPORTANT STATEMENTS. It's not a matter of rage, BUT MORE OF A MATTER OF USING IT AS A WAY OF HIGHLIGHTING. To me, IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN USING A HIGHLIGHTER. Also, when I tell people that "if You're an Obama supporter, I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself and respect the neutral point of view policy, I AM ONLY TRYING TO ENFORCE THE POLICY IN THE FIRST PLACE. I ONLY SAy "IF YOU ARE," NOT "YOU ARE."Kevin j (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ricky, could you please take another look at the crap that is going down on the Bill Clinton and Sally Perdue pages? Kevin J has undone your reversions of two weeks ago and is being very hostile with other editors, once again. -- plushpuffin (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I DID NOT. When Plushpuffin whines about me being guilty for something I'm not, it does agitate me. I want this user to stop this and understand that his opinion is not always the right one.Kevin j (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven' encountered Kevin j before, but I know that edits like this on my talk page are not an acceptable way to have a discussion. And his addition to Bill Clinton was based on an unreliable source - there are no reliable sources available, so the material does not belong in the article. We have BLP policy for a reason. Ricky, will you remove it, or should I? Tvoz/talk 02:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, I'm afraid you're mistaken. THE CAPITOL HILL BLUE IS NOT UNREALIABLE IN ANYWAY. KEEP YOUR OPINIONS TO YOURSELF AND RESPECT THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW POLICY. You've already confessed you're a "Nancy Reagan Warrior" on your userpage, AND WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR POLITICAL PROPAGANDA. I also really don't care about your barnstars, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES FOR ANYBODY ON WIKIPEDIA. Just so you also know, I'm also now using Italics to highlight may main points and I know that nothing I have done is wrong of in violation of the BLP policy. The Capital Hill Blue's motto about the mainstream media is also only an advertisement that's no different than CNN's "most trusted name in news" or Fox News' "Fair and Balanced."Kevin j (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, "Nancy Reagan warrior"? It's called irony, friend. Tvoz/talk 02:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Kay Sieverding user page

My user page was locked. After receiving notice that it was locked I deleted what I thought were the objectionable sections. It was again locked. How does this sound as an acceptable user page: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs)

Note: removed in case of potential issue. See this version. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Enrique dela Costa

An article that you have been involved in editing, Enrique dela Costa, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enrique dela Costa. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kirker

He has recieved my warning 14 minutes before your warning :)--Rjecina (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ricky81682. You said I was banned for incivility and refusal to explain myself. The incivility bit is a matter of opinion and there's no point arguing about that. But the statement that I have refused to explain myself is a lie. If you meant that I did not respond within the ten minutes you allowed between telling me about Rjecina's complaint and your decision to ban me, then at least you are being honest enough to wear your prejudice on your sleeve.
To be serious, I regard Rjecina's complaint to be in keeping with his small-minded mentality. And your ready cow-towing to such a blatently POV contributor (I blame that Croat parentage!) is just another example of that beaurocratic posturing you revel in. I've said something about all this on my talk page. You don't have to read it, but don't then go round saying I don't respond to complaints.
I've always thought Rjecina was too pathetic to be worth complaining about, but what is the procedure for complaining about your crass administering? Kirker (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I saw your response. But most of my points remain unanswered. I've put in a complaint. Kirker (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment to Rjecina

Ricky, my comment to Rjecina that you have criticised at AN/I was entirely appropriate. It was, indeed carefully thought out and well judged. Your move. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Brzica milos etc

I have asked checkuser for Brzica milos Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Brzica milos etc.

My actions in article Ljubo Miloš (you have commented my action in this article) are very simple. On 20:11, 3 September 2008 we are having user Brzica milos etc edit (in reality revert). 2 days latter we are having user Brzica milos etc which is together with user 71.252.106.166 starting edit warring in this article. I am sure that there is no need for my further writings about this user ??

In my thinking only problem in this article is end of this summer IP ban which has blocked this user.

Because of my "interesting" vandal revert policy I am always in contact with administrators and until now I am OK. You can read part of older similar discussion on top of my talk page.--Rjecina (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetmess

It will have to wait until morning--Tznkai (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than start a whole new thread, I'm just going to tack this on here. Editing in Balkan related areas is akin to walking through a minefield, and despite some of my personal beliefs, there are no easy answers. Rather than continuing the sock accusation cycle, I'm (slowly) planning on getting together a WikiProject of some sort related to WP:ECCN to get some neutral voices and a solid framework to help end these endless edit wars. We're dealing with articles relating to an area that was in conflict before our grandparents were born, and rather than attempting to put out brush fires in individual articles scattered across Wikipedia, I think it might be much easier to have an ongoing, centralized discussion. While I disagree with your block of Kirker, I absolutely understand why you made it, and I also understand how irritating it must be to have your name on that AN/I thread. Don't sweat it. I'm planning on undertaking, or rather attempting to at least start this project/experimentation in the next week or so depending on my schedule which is painfully full. If you're interested in participating, I'll keep you informed. AniMate 05:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - misunderstanding

Hi, Ricky, thanks for your prompt reaction.
My comment wasn't pointed towards you (neither against you), but to other admins.
I've written "Has any other admin read WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK"?
I thought: you've tried to remain uninvolved, to avoid any overreaction, to remove your personal feelings when you brought the decision about blocking of Kirker.
Point of my message was: no good deed goes unpunished. You gave Kirker (IMHO) a too mild punishment, and he, instead being thankful to you, because you gave him chance, he describes your work here as "crass administering", and even more on WP/ANI "Time for User:Ricky81682 to go? ".
Point is: has any other admin seen what's going on? Why they haven't encouraged you to punish the insulter even more?
Problem was with others, not with you. Greetings, Kubura (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a small detail, Kubura, but it wasn't me who said "Time for Ricky81682 to go?" Kirker (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I withdraw the accusation about "time for ... to go". After comparing dozens of diffs, and seeing bunch of etiquetting like "snide arsehole", "pathetic", "spineless", "crass", I wasn't concentraded as at the beginning. Kubura (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Puppets

If you are interested in our Balkan problems I can give you data for discovering puppets. Only problem is that this data will come in email, because there is no point in writing on talk page when 1 of maybe more banned users (I am 100 % sure about Pax) are reading all my edits. This informations will be only for your use !--Rjecina (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have asked fast check for Rjecka-budala because I know this user (Pax)--Rjecina (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina problem

Rjecina recently tried to block J.A. Comment, user who he is stalking for many months, bragging "Now I will block J.A. Comment" [7], like he is an admin here. Another admin, Manogojuice, also considered blocking Rjecina for his disruptive behavior. Rjecina never asumes good faith, deletes other people comments from talk pages [8], and does numerous other violations, including incivility in edit summaries, and the only reason he is getting away with it is that noone really bothers to complain about his behaviour. It is high time that someone dealt with this disruptive editor for abusing the admin machinery to get his POV, edit warring, stalking, incivility, ignoring warnings, never assuming good faith, in short, disrupting wikipedia and annoying quite a few wikipedians. He persistantly tries to game the admin system for his own POV agenda, and is the real problem here. 213.198.217.106 (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Addendum to AN/I

Hello Ricky,

I apologize for raising this issue again (its actually more of a supplement) but I remember that you asked for a summary. The last time, the second sock puppetry accusation against me distracted away from the main issue and I was also drawn into defend other false comments and address points that were overlooked by others. So it got messy.

I put a detailed summary on the ANI page again (and details of the sock puppetry accusations on my talk page for documentary defense against future such accusations). I am sorry that it is long but a lot was done and the summary addresses most of it, step by step. I tried to refer to (and assess) all relevant information as succinctly as possible. I have done this in case I am again accused in future and will refer to these addictions in my defense.

Essentially, I was falsely accused of being a sock & was subjected to several levels of abuse along the way. Then, after I was cleared, no regard was given to my being exonerated. I am still the subject of slanderous insinuations and my accuser continued to canvass others to promote the idea of me being a sock and petition for my expulsion. I have been called fascist and a racist, though my contributions clearly are not. The claim that I travel the world to places I have never been to do all this is simply preposterous. Those who see Noclodor as having done nothing wrong have admitted they did not read much of my evidence and, I guess, think this kind of abuse is ok. False/inaccurate information was and continued to be presented in an effort to link me to other users who they deem to be socks. Along the way I have tried to highlight the issue of abuse and slander, which has resulted in the ANI etc.

I later found that this has all originated from my attempt to constructively convert one POV passage on Italian military by another user into a relevant NPOV passage. It appears that no one ever botherered to read the text that I included or check out my citations. Ironically, I did not contribute much to the topic and it comprises only a portion of the variety of contributions I have so far been able to make.

I have noticed that you have pulled at least one of accuser’s colleagues up (i.e. one that thinks Noclador did nothing wrong) for abusing another editor elsewhere; in association with user:Rjecina (I do not follow his/her posts). So it appears that my case of abuse is not isolated (although my posts have almost zero relation to the topics I was dragged in & accused over). In his defense, this other user otherwise seemed respectful towards me (so I won’t name him here).

I feel that people who conduct such investigations with the level of competency and abuse I have highlighted should NOT be allowed to do so. I feel that strongly about it that I am considering contacting senior foundation members external to the Wikipedia forum. The issue is not about me but rather about the of abuse and lack of respect by “investigators”.

Sincerely Romaioi (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Magnum Crimen

Can I please ask you why user:71.252.106.166 is not banned ? Checkuser is clear about him ?

There is small problem with Slobodan Kljakic statement about book ("described the book as A major piece,...") In references it is writen that source of this statement is published by "Ministry of Information of the Republic of Serbia in 1991" ????? I am sure that you know how respected is any source when it is published by Ministry of Information during war of nations. First rule of propaganda is to show other side like monsters.

I have not answered on Magnum Crimen talk page because I do not speak with banned user puppets (user:71.252.106.166).--Rjecina (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please look article Ivo Andrić and my banned user and vandalism reverts. I am sure that in next 24 hours I will make 4 or more reverts. I am need somebody to look and protect this article (semi-protection is not option) against banned user puppets. You can see differences between "versions" (and statement sources), and that during July 2008 this article has been under similar attack with many blocked and banned vandals and puppets--Rjecina (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina and Ivo Andric page

As I can see here I'm not the only one here that had problem with Rjecina

"Rjecina problem

Rjecina recently tried to block J.A. Comment, user who he is stalking for many months, bragging "Now I will block J.A. Comment" [7], like he is an admin here. Another admin, Manogojuice, also considered blocking Rjecina for his disruptive behavior. Rjecina never asumes good faith, deletes other people comments from talk pages [8], and does numerous other violations, including incivility in edit summaries, and the only reason he is getting away with it is that noone really bothers to complain about his behaviour. It is high time that someone dealt with this disruptive editor for abusing the admin machinery to get his POV, edit warring, stalking, incivility, ignoring warnings, never assuming good faith, in short, disrupting wikipedia and annoying quite a few wikipedians. He persistantly tries to game the admin system for his own POV agenda, and is the real problem here. 213.198.217.106 (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)"

Reason for my edits and reverts on Ivo Andric page are that the article is full of wrong "facts" and that Croatian University is used as a reference, which is completely illogical because it can't get more biased than that. The hard fact is that Ivo Andric was a Bosnian of Serb ethnicity, he himself confirmed that many times during his life; And still wiki article states that he is a Croat and uses Croatian University as reference.Pure Croatian propaganda.And if you look at that article change history you'll see that I'm not the only one that disapproves it. Also, Rjecina is deleting references that point out that Ivo Andric was a Serb. That is all.

Hello, Ricky. Even though you don't know me, or have never talked me before I would like to share my experience with the user Rjecina. Overall the experience has been negative. About a year ago when I opened up an Wikipedia account the user kept calling me a nationalist. This was very untrue since my additions were NPOV. Tonight, for example, Rjecina removed a piece of information that was cited by University of Maryland, United Nations and US Department of State Human Rights. Under this entry I've provided a link to tonights discussion with Rjecina. Lastly, this user needs to be punished and monitored by an administrator in order for his provocations to stop. Please read the section "University of Maryland", in which user argues against sourced information solely based on his opinions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serbs_of_CroatiaMike Babic (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
What about your small ban because of copyright problems ??--Rjecina (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Pop Weaver

Thanks for fixing the image problem, but I still can't see that this is notable. Would you like to comment at the talk page? Richard Pinch (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey once again

Thanks for the reply. I have reported him, now its up to the judges.Mike Babic (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Because of warnings it will be wise to inform you about my new demand for user:Thatcher (User:147.91.1.45 and User:147.91.1.41). Situation is clear (see block log) but let us give him new job.--Rjecina (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Help required !!!

Hello, I urgently require some help from you. Actually, a user uploaded an Image Image:MangaloreanCatholicsRules.gif on the Mangalorean Catholics article, and released it under the Public domain. But however, when I checked the Individual articles on them, no free Images were present. I checked the entire Wikimedia Commons but those images were not found. That means these are copyrighted images copied from other websites, and then merged into a bigger Image. Is it allowed as per WIKIpolicies. I have contacted you since you are an administrator. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Glutton for punishment?

A cursory glance through your talk page, and I see that you previously were involved in the editing conflicts surrounding Hungary/Slovakia. Why you would willingly allow yourself to be drawn into another cultural edit war is beyond me, but here we are. I'm contacting you because I can see you're talk page is getting spammed by people on both sides of this conflict in an attempt to gain some kind of administrative edge on the other. This needs to stop before you run screaming from the building, though I also think we need a neutral administrator (actually several) to keep an eye on things. My question, is how do you think we can keep the talk page on various articles from turning into a poisonous environment where editors just give up like you did at Magnum Crimen? I've thought about formal mediation, but how can someone mediate a conflict like this? How can a mediator be effective when there are clearly sockpuppets who do not want to play by the rules, and people willing to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of sockpuppeting? I went to WP:ECCN thinking in theory that would be the best place to get some help. Turns out, it's just a low traffic noticeboard that the WP:WORKINGGROUP created and abandoned, and the only response I got there was an assertion that this simply an editorial "style" conflict from another disputant. Am I being impatient? I certainly know that we're not going to solve any of the region's problems on article talk pages, but I've frankly had enough of this poisonous environment. I guess I'm asking if you think it's time to bring in some formal process to make working on these articles bearable, and if you do what process do you think would be most effective? AniMate 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the idea of an admin coming in and stripping everything down. The one problem in sourcing, is that this conflict has also spread to academia. There are sources on both sides that can back up any number of claims. Magnum Crimen for instance. It gets the major facts right, but spins them in such a partisan, propogandist way that the book cannot be considered a reliable source, though many people will insist that it is. This hand picking of sources is one of the reasons I was hoping to get something going with the "working group", as they allegedly spent time figuring out how to deal with these conflicts. Perhaps, some sort of specialized mediation would help, but I'm rapidly getting sick of editing in this whole region. Honestly, I have no idea what my next step to getting this morass in check will be, though at least I'm not in the position of having a user talk page that's quickly becoming the newest focal point for accusations about Balkan editors. For the nonce, I'm going to wade back into some rather tricky article on Freemasonry, that are shockingly less controversial and easier to deal with than this whole mess. AniMate 03:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
If either of you were researching the former Yugoslavia for another purpose, you would be infuriated by the shortcomings of some Wikipedia articles, which are often the first pages returned from Google searches. On the other hand some articles, and the discussions behind them, (Ustaše for instance) are very useful, so I have been willing to contribute to the project where I could. It isn't easy, but some of the more disruptive editors lack stamina for the long haul and slope away. (I am not here thinking of Rjecina, who has made some constructive interventions along the way.)
When Rick81682 first showed on my radar I thought he was shooting from the hip. Since then I have seen him getting to grips with some of the problems, by trying to improve Magnum Crimen, I am sorry he was discouraged by just one or two obdurate editors (who may, perhaps, be on the wrong side of a language barrier?). There is no consensus in favour of leaving unsourced material unchallenged, nor in favour of deleting anything that is unequivocally sourced. Anyone who persists in applying Wikipedia policy in either case will win in the end. Kirker (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I like your editorial style.--Rjecina (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ivo Andrić

We are having dispute in this article. Sentence which you have deleted is from Haverford College text which you support. This sentence is put in article with copy/paste and it is not possible to delete this with statement "better to use the language the sources do rather than describe them as "nationalists"" ??--Rjecina (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Ivo Andrić parents are now OK ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I am tired of this and I am on wiki vaccation until Tuesday--Rjecina (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Pax IPs

Hi Ricky, sorry to drag you further into this, but I am getting the feeling that I may be being led down the garden path by User:Rjecina. Could you look at my recent blocks of 147.91.1.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 147.91.1.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), just as a sanity check if you have time. Cheers Kevin (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki ANI

I appreciate your time looking into the ANI that Blaxthos has initiated. I believe a quick look into the contribs/talk pages from him will reveal his motivations for doing so. Thanks for your time! Wikiport (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
More flamboyant misrepresentations at ANI. Your help is appreciated. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Uter Tan Syndrome

Please add a space in the name of syndrome. I do not know how to do it.

I geting filings that is something fundamentaly wrong with exposing last names of medical cases. You doing this. Dont you think so ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.198.94 (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Jasenovac

We are having new SPA POV pushing account. I have reverted his edits and it is possible read why. Today I am having only small wiki vaccation break which will continue next 9 days.--Rjecina (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:VCU

That's fine. Hopefully they got what they were looking for, though I still think that professor should create some more effective teaching methods... Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 03:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiport cubed

Again!. I know it's getting way old. Thanks for hanging in here, mate. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

Thanks for the heads up, and more importantly for jumping into the talk page discussion. It's getting old and stale. I arrived at the page initially a few months ago from another ANI thread, so I don't really care one way or the other on what the content of the page is, just as long as it follows MOS and there is a consensus among the editors to do so. When I first came across the page, the current version (or close to it) was the consensus among several editors, except Chanakya. Now it's down to two editors.

Personally, I believe Chankya's edits should be added, but not the way he's going about it. I made some proposals fairly recently and I thought I had made some progress by trying to initiate the discussion again, but that obviously failed.

Anyway, enough with the background -- you might have already learned all of this already out by reading the old discussions. Once again, thanks for jumping in. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Arjun Edit...

Hi, I saw your latest edit on the Arjun article cited the need for more sources. I have added more sources accordingly for the sections that I have edited. As for more specific claims about Arjun's mobility, firepower, FCS, and other systems, I was not the original editor for those sections, and I could not locate sources for the claims contained therein. I hope other editors may contribute instead. By78 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

trouble with translating Croatian

if you trouble translating from croatia to english use this website http://translate.google.com/translate_t# . I'm giving you this website you seem to be doubtful on the merit that a new editor contributes. I'm here to say that you can use this website to check every single one of the sources. However, what troubles me more is the fact that DIREKTOR removed 10 names off the article Serbs of Croatia And I was the only person that actually cared enough to undo his "mistake". this is funny since there's like four or five editors who edit this article. it's also funny that these violations (or mistakes, im not judging) seemed to slip by editor. this is especially true when there is anything "positive" toward Serbs. Then removal seems normal and goes unnoticed. Lastly, there's no need to attack new editors. Especially, when they source their claims AND are willing to discuss any discrepancies on the discussion page. thanks for your timeMike Babic (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Magnum Crimen

Thanks for your note. I remember you (at the time I believed only semi-seriously) proposing that solution at ANI, and now - as then - I have to admit that it has a strange appeal ;) Although the edit-warring has stopped, which was my initial purpose in protecting the page, it looks like you're still banging your head against a brick wall on the talk page. I certainly don't have a problem with you taking things to the next level; you've apparently made no actual content contributions, so I don't think you could be regarded as too involved. Actually, I'm in a similar position on Chanelle Hayes, where I recently blocked an editor for continually removing sourced content he didn't like. I'd been keeping an eye on the article for a while, following up an ANI report, and although it wasn't my reason for being there, I've also removed half-dozen inappropriate links and wikified things a little. I can't help doing that - it may be pathological :P - but I don't see it as 'involvement'. Becoming involved would, in my view, mean doing something that gives one a personal stake in an article, such as adding content or advocating a POV.

Incidentally, if you want an extra pair of eyes on the article and talk page, I'm more than happy to oblige; I pretty much volunteered when I reponded to the ANI thread anyway ;) All the best, EyeSerenetalk 13:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Re your note

I agree, enough is enough. I've blocked for 24 hours (review welcome!) EyeSerenetalk 10:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Arjun Article...

Hi there. I took action to remove some clear POV pushing by Chanakyathegreat for the Arjun article. I have opened a new section in the discussions to document what he has done. It is getting ridiculous. May I suggest we go back to the previous, and still standing, agreement that Chanakya submit his changes for peer review before incorporating them into the actual article. I seriously do not have the time to fix his mess. By78 (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Should Dogwellwer be an admin?

Dear Ricky, I see that many responsible ones here also seem to have turned a blind eye to admin Dougweller's recent misgivings. Apparently, someone else also ran into his disruptive editing. He really needs to work on NPOV. He continues to dabble in with his own POV on the Henotheism page after the recent Adityas debacle. Let me remind here that “civility” is best understood as rational commentary. So he should really go debate on the Talk:Henotheism instead of engaging in edit reversals pushing his own POV, without paying attention to references added by others (in this case ADvaitaFan) for verifiability. Why not talk to him about “civility” and "wikiquette"? It should also be noted that “rational debate” does not just mean usage of a good tone, but also willingness to compromise and adapt to the positions of other editors: simply repeating his original position ad nauseam through rvs in the face of questionable verifiability of rvs – is not civil, but merely tendentious. Be well. VedicScience (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Frustration

My comments in article Serbs of Croatia has been needed because Wikipedia original research policy. Source is saying that he is born in Slavonia and when I say that this is Croatia it is original research ? It is possible to write my comments with "better" words, but I have tried to test your double standards and test has been OK (from my point)

For me it is interesting how you are always seeing my "incivility" but you are refusing to act when I am under attacked with incivility. During last 6 days new account has called my (and 1 other users) edits vandalism 4 times [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , but this new account with knowledge how wikipedia work is nice guy for which wikipedia civility rules are not importanty but for my SPA account we are having different story.

Reason for my thinking about your double standards is thinking that you are checking all my edits and because of that you are knowing about all this attacks --Rjecina (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Like you can see I have started 2 RFC.
I am interested in your further moves about this articles. Will you go to next articles after end of discussion in article Serbs of Croatia (which in my thinking is very small problem) and Magnum Crimen or you will escape from Balkan related articles ? If you will continue your work in other Croatia related articles I will end my "stoping" actions of new SPA accounts ?--Rjecina (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you please find solution for this problem so that this edit warring will end for all times.--Rjecina (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I am having another account :)
If you will work long enough in this articles you will see that ulmost always problems are created by new accounts. --Rjecina (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see someone remembered that there are ideas out there for a solution to this editing quagmire. Honestly, I'm at the point where I wouldn't mind seeing an extension of the protection and some enforced mediation. Probably won't happen, but something needs to give. AniMate 21:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Between us there is agreement that something similar must be done, but I am afraid that this will not happen in near future.--Rjecina (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Arjun MBT

Can you deny that the trials be it in winter or summer is part of AUCRT?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

To be quite frank, I don't think there is much point in reasoning with him. We've had the same problem with Chanakya pushing his POV over at great power before. He quite clearly has a Megalomaniacal point of view, insisting on representing what he calls the "truth" or "reality". He would constantly revert to his "version" which he interpreted as the neutral one. All appeals for compromise have failed and the issue ended up dragging on for over 8 months. Short blocks have not seemed to work; perhaps more long-term intervention is necessary. Nirvana888 (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Long-term intervention is necessary. By78 (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Ricky, a simple question, why don't you revert when By78 changed my clarification of the issues being with the winter trials again to summer trials. He adds links that don't touch that end or this end with his edits by removing my edits with the exact links. Why that is not reverted. The issue I had explained multiple times in very simple manner. If the Admins are unable to understand this simple fact, I am helpless. I will explain to you again in simple terms what is the issue. The issue is about the latest trials of the Arjun, during the trials there was gear box failure. The army higher ups presented a report to the parliamentary committee which was made public by the Minister in answer to a question in parliament. In this report so many issues are reported as happened during the trials. There were hue and cry. The parliamentary committee to which the report was submitted, said that the report is inaccurate and they are shocked to find this report and questioned the report saying that how can the so many issues happen since the Army during the last trials have found the accuracy and consistency of the Arjun tank satisfactory. You can verify it from the "Ministry of Defence report 2006-07" which says "After successful user validation trials during summer 2006, five tanks have been handed over to the Army in June 2006." Now how can one contradict this Ministry of defense, Government of India report on the Arjun trials in 2006. After this report submission sabotage was suspected during the trials and there were visits by the ministers to DRDO. The army declined that any sabotage happened during the trials. (In reality the sabotage was the report) Then reports of inquiry into the issue. (Later the Army accepting the report was a mistake (idrw.org)). What we saw was the report to the winter trials (part of AUCRT) and then in the summer trials (part of AUCRT) you don't have any links to claim that the summer trials were unsuccessful but there are links that say the summer trials are successful. (The misunderstanding happens here is because the PIB report of the trials were made public in May and from then onwards newspapers wrote about the failure of the trials, fortunately some were accurate enough to mention "failed during winter trials" removing the confusion). Try checking the various links existing from this point of view, you will not find one contradiction, hence this is the truth and the truth. if you add it into to wikipedia or not, it's not my problem. It's the problem of Wikipedia Admins to decide, i can only contribute, if the Admins have objections to correct info, i cannot do anything. Thank you.

Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm torn. It's becoming harder and harder for me to AGF with his actions. I'd like to believe that he means well, however he not only doesn't seem to understand all of the things that he's doing wrong, but then he doesn't make any attempt to correct himself. His repeated accusations of vandalism, conspiracy from other users and "Admins" against him, and his lack of proper formatting after numerous warnings alone have made me come close to blocking him for an extended period of time (and this is before you even came along and warned him again a few more times). Unfortunately, what it comes down to is that I don't see this ever being resolved, because I think it's safe to say that he will never become a valuable contributor, and I'm not sure if he'll even elevate himself above a disruptive user and overall nuisance. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, there Chanakya goes again. I now doubt he even read single word of my rebuttals. Heh, but I am more stubborn than him, and I will continue as long as it takes to make sure no POV pushing is done to the Arjun article. By the way, he forgot to indent again, and I have done it for him (yet again). Seriously now, I think long-term intervention is necessary. By78 (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you getting confused. When I say, Ashwamedh exercise it happened in 2007. I added the link of Ashwamedh exercise into the AUCRT section by mistake but there specifically mention it as Ashwamedh. This happened because you have asked for links for all and I searched and put it in AUCRT section. But I had added the same in Ashwamedh exercise section also. What you call mixup is not really a mixup. When asked to prove something that is present in other section, I had to provide source to the same. But one thing is very clear that be it in any section I clearly mention it as Ashwamedh, AUCRT trial, etc. I had never misrepresented any facts. What I find is that you guys are only good at accusing me. I am not saying it for fun. Just go and check the Arjun MBT page. Check the edit by By78 and the links he provided. Now you are coming and accusing me.

Just check this, I will give you a sample. Let's start with the Summer 2006 trial section. The By78 edit says "It was remarked by Major General H.M. Singh in 2007 that the Firing Trials of 2006 demonstrated "the accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt."". It's true that the H.M Singh did comment. But he was quoting from the Army report that was submitted by the Indian Army. Want proof just check the same link[13] which says. "Major General H.M. Singh, Additional Director in charge of trial and evaluation, said last year's user field trial report had certified that the accuracy and consistency of the weapon system was proved beyond doubt." Who is this user and which is this field trial report. The user is the Indian Army and the report is by the Indian Army. Now why is such anomalies in the edits. Is this done by me or someone else. Now why are you accusing me for that. Now check the second link which is more accurate. It says "In fact, the army has already accepted the Arjun for introduction into service, based upon its driving and firing performance over the years. After firing trials in summer 2006, the trial report (written by the army) said: "The accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt." Now who is doing things that are against wiki rules. I will post more later. Time restrictions. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Aha, so you do read the sources carefully. Now I know that your weaving of POV using dubious interpretations of sources was deliberate, intentional, and against wikipedia policy. To answer your accusation above, I have the following to say:
There are three sources provided for the Summer 2006 Trials. 1)http://www.hinduonnet.com/2007/05/13/stories/2007051301111000.htm, 2)http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=320574, and 3)http://www.indianexpress.com/news/arjun-main-battle-tanked/16589/1
Sources 1) and 2) are provided by you, Chanakya. 3) was provided by me. The funny thing is that your sources 1) and 2) do not agree with each other. 1) says army trials proved accuracy and consistency are proven, but 2) says FIRING trials proved accuracy and consistency. On top of this 3) clearly states that "According to the Army’s latest trials, the decade-old problem of overheating..." and so the list of problems goes on. Now, your sources couldn't agree with each other, and mine 3) actually came at the END of 2006 that disagreed with both 1) and 2). This is why I have edited the section the way I did. The accuracy and consistency could have only been proven by the FIRING trials based on a logical reading of all three sources. By78 (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ricky, I think it's better to go section by section to solve the whole problem. I had replied in the Summer 2006. You can check it and express your opinion. By78 post in the Summer 2006 section and also with logic for your disagreement and put within quotes what the sources have to say.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You have not replied in the Summer 2006 section of the Arjun MBT talk page.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Ricky, I am waiting for a response from you regarding the summer 2006 section. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom Papania

Hi... caliroan here. The www.tompapaniafraud.com link is *not broken* Thanks for at least leaving up that "sources challenge Papania's testimony." Many of the footnotes that support Papania's false claims merely link back to his own web site. That's like footnoting a post that says 2+2=5 back to a web site that confirms 2+2=5. Hopefuly people who are researching Papania as he markets himself as an evangelist will look beyond Wikipedia - there is so much material on the web that supports the conclusion the guy is not what he pretends to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.151.2.10 (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re your note

My feeling is that you're right, and in any case we should err on the side of caution. I'm no copyright expert, but I know that we can't include song lyrics even in articles about the song itself (eg Run to You (song)) for copyright reasons. I understand it's slightly different when the lyrics are needed for (sourced) analysis, but even then only the relevant portion should be used, not the song in its entirety. EyeSerenetalk 09:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a Worm for a Walk

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

What do we do when no one notices a noticeboard anymore?

Along with the working group, the Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard was created in part to siphon off the endless threads that often clogged WP:AN and WP:AN/I with complex nationalist, ethnic, and cultural issues that couldn't be solved with simple administrative actions. Unfortunately, no one from the working group has checked in over there for months, and the majority of posts that are made languish without any replies from uninvolved editors. The board is so dead that no one has bothered setting up a bot to archive as it would be pointless. I know that the community sanction noticeboard was marked historical after a MfD debate, but that was because many felt it was actively harming the project and editors. This board isn't necessarily hurting anyone or harming the project, but it is useless. I've been considering nominating it for deletion, but haven't been feeling quite bold enough to do so without some input. I left a note on the noticeboard's talk page, and shockingly no one responded. So, I brought this here after drafting a deletion rationale and then chickening out. What do you think? Should I nominate it or should I ignore the essentially useless link to it on top of all the noticeboards where people actually respond? AniMate 01:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein

Thanks for responding, and for removing the full protection. The reason that I think indefinite semi-protection is appropriate is that this article — like several others about Jewish critics of Israel — has been subject to constant defamatory attacks, in breach of WP:BLP, from vandals using anonymous IPs, or by single-purpose accounts. Most of these seem to use anonymisers and proxy servers to cover their tracks. It is clearly targetted for vandalism, and should be protected. Indefinite semi-protection will not affect genuine editors, but should prevent nost, if not all, of this vandalism. RolandR (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just looked through the page history, and see that well over 200 of the past 500 edits have been exactly this sort of fly-by vandalism or its reversion. This is causing a major waste of time and effort for scores of editors, as well as allowing the vandals to post scurrilous and possibly libellous attacks on Wikipedia. I see no evidence of anonymous IPs or newly-registered accounts making constructive or good faith edits. Indefinite semi-protection will not affect any of the editors who are trying to improve this article, but it would solve the problem of constant BLP-breaching vandalism. RolandR (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Template:BD

BD has to completely be deleted. Its title was changed in the past because it was hiding the fact that it using DEFAULTSORT. I requested an extend to the tasks of my bot so I can remove BD from the 20,000 articles are using it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

indefinite protection

Today article Charlemagne has recieved indefinite protection. In my thinking this solution can be used for Croatia related articles which are every few months protected because of newly created SPA accounts. Can you tell me your thinking about this ?--Rjecina (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing

On my user talk page, you said something about editing. All I was doing was welcoming them, not vandleisng their talk pages. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What Have I Done?

Have I done something wrong? What did I do wrong- "This ain't right."? Please fill me out on that. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek

Thanks for your civil suggestion, can you feedback later if you think it reads more formally now? Alientraveller (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: GameCritics

Thanks for the heads-up, it's kinda weird being quoted and being used as justification. :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

What is the {{}} key to show that an artilce needs to be rewriten?--Marshall T. Williams (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A bit late...

Hi, I have just discovered that you requested a link to Shukla discussion in one of the Arjun discussion sections. Sorry I did not see it until now, you know how much back and forth has been going on there that it is hard to track. Anyhow, here is the link you requested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arjun_MBT/Archive_1#Arjun_Dead). —Preceding unsigned comment added by By78 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Help!

Help! My Twinkle gadget isn't showing up all the time! What do I do? --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


Revert Rule

Thank you, Ricky81682, for the information (which is new to me). I'll bear it in mind. Of course, Mitsube must follow the same rule too! Suddha (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, Ricky81682, for letting me know about the discussion relating to Amnam Gumnam and Mitsube (and myself, Suddha). I've added some comments of my own on that page. Suddha (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara

Your opinion. At what point do we stop all these "new" users who rotate from one topic to another? I've seen the same group of users, each one in the same order, appearing on topic after topic to (1) edit war (2) get the article protected (3) shift to another new one. I'm think I might go and violate the protection and remove the lyrics. We are claiming that a living person sang that song (which is disputed). To then put up lyrics unsourced and an unsourced translation seems like the strongest WP:BLP violation to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from but I'm not sure I know how best to handle this. Have you tried WP:BLPN? Stifle (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:The Holocaust

Some movement has been made here and some sources have been found. If you'd like to chime in with your opinion it would be appreciated. AniMate 18:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Your Message on my Talk Page

Thank you. I have seen your message and I have responded in detail on the Administrator's Noticeboard. As you will see, there are two sides to every story. The person doing the harrassing is this user Mitsube. -- अनाम गुमनाम 00:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Suchart Thadathamrongvej.jpg

I found it from Ministry of Finance of Thailand website. [14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by AkAiBaRa (talk • contribs) 05:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion.08:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sao Paulo

I guess i just confused with wich one is the largest or biggest, in terms of population or metropolitan area, but I found this two goverment pages about sao paulo's population and metropolitan area http://www.cidadedesaopaulo.com/ingles/dados.asp, and another one about mexico's city population and metropolitan area [Spanish]http://www.setravi.df.gob.mx/vialidades/numeralia.html, So this two pages ratify sao paulos's position 1(by the way this is the link in wich I thought mexico city was largest/biggest http://population-statistics.com/wg.php?x=&men=gcis&lng=es&dat=32&geo=-2&srt=pnan&col=aohdq&pt=a&va=x), thank you for let me know that i need more sources before editing, I hope it works as an argument or i guess i will be blcked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe0 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ricky81682/Archive_5&oldid=1146689233"