i went back to "is the goverment out to get us?" page and read what you put about my hotplates and busted out laughing, i needed that. and no.... i havnt had the time yet to start my lil project. Talk Shugoːː 17:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and yeah it was an axident i didnt notice that it got deleted when i was editing the talk page till after i saved it, my bad. --Talk Shugoːː 17:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fascinating catch you've made there, with that Wiki-plagiarism in Living with Terror. This reminds me of an experience I had about a year ago, when I began to see much of my own Wiki-writing appear in countless news articles and websites, lifted from my edits at Chinua Achebe. It was perhaps a bit vain of me to notice, but lord I do have my weaknesses: compare [1] and this much older version of his Wiki page.
Many other sentences and phrases were lifted as well. Every news piece I looked at, I found stuff that I had written in the Wiki article. Even the Hindustan Times noted the "ill-fated" Biafran's view of "the intricacies of pre-colonial African culture and civilization".[2] This all occurred in the context of the awarding of Chinua Achebe with the Man Booker International Prize for 2007; Man Booker also reproduced some of my Wiki-work, in explaining their choice. I guess that's probably not all that uncommon, but I consider it a career highlight. :o) DBaba (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. You and I don't know each other very well; you might remember me as a hot-headed wikipedian who infrequently discusses on the Main Page discussion page. I know that you and I have not seen eye to eye before, but I need your help in resolving a small dispute. The article Persian Mesopotamia has, after much debating, overwhelming amount of references presented by User:Chaldean and the introduction of a Third Opinion been decided to be re-named to Achaemenid Assyria. However, such a move needs an admin or a mod, and thats where my request for your aid comes.
You are right, I was totally unaware that rollback rights could be granted upon request. I am so busy creating articles and writing for other publications. After I became aware of the Rollback situation I went and granted the rollback option to the user who requested it. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this useful comment [3] on the Reliable sources noticeboard. I wonder if you would be willing to comment further on talkpage of the article concerned Robert Latimer where editors are still struggling with idea that secondary sources are to be preferred. --Slp1 (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, though unfortunately as usual there is no useful response or interaction about what has been said. If you felt like keeping an eye, I would be very grateful, but totally understand if you don't!!! --Slp1 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that one I was confused: I thought that your "at least two years" was some kind of allusion to my "forever" comment. That's what it seemed like to me, sense it didn't make sense to me in any other way. If that's not how you intended it, then I guess I don't get your comment, and I apologize. BenjaminScrīptum est-Fecī 21:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. A request for mediation has been lodged for the John Howard article, concerning whether information about an incident between John Howard and Barack Obama should be included or deleted from the article. The link for the RfM is Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard. The issue is still being discussed on the article talk page. Please go to the RfM page and list whether you agree or disagree to be involved in mediation of this issue. Thank you, Lester 01:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was pointing it out again because of that fact that the conversation was continuing irrelevant of ffm's notice. ☯Ferdia O'Brien(T)/(C) 19:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusations are unfounded! I have caused no vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duben17 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avril Lavigne has the entertainment value of a brick. Why would I care about her? I think it's about time you issued me an apology, assuming you can muster it. Next time you deserve a trout in the face for questioning someone's intentions, I'll expect you'll take it with dignity instead of making personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duben17 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for Image:Durian-pronounciation.ogg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Durian-pronounciation.ogg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
Thank you for thanking me. It just looked like another instance of the refdesk trolling we've seen a lot of lately, as I said. What was inappropriate about it? I thought usernames using non-Latin characters were permitted. Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I figured ... not the Korean but the words. I think we've blocked people for too-cute self-conscious self-referential usernames here in any event. Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Nil Einne. I noticed you removed a question from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. Just curious as I replied to it, is that the standard procedure when dealing with trolls? D0762 (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I knew there was a problem but I had no idea it had been going on for so long. D0762 (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i think it looks cool. can you tell someone who works it out to test it then to discuss with others and put it on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.220.127 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is to YOUR preceived, asked and anwsered. "Our"? Yes, just a few editors that have accounts. This is so biased, so totally biased to favor your own intrests, and your other editor villains.68.148.164.166 (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nil Einne, thank you for your message. Firstly, until five minutes ago I was unaware that the above-mentioned two individuals had a Wikipedia entry (otherwise I would have referred to the entry, rather than to a video on YouTube). As for reliable source or sources for what I had indicted earlier (here [4]), my knowledge on the case at hand comes directly and entirely from an article published in der Spiegel, as I mentioned previously. I have not been able to trace this article back. Someone interested in the issue should consider to contact der Spiegel and ask them about what they have published on this and/or similar cases over the course of years.
Now something important. On briefly looking through the present Wikipedia entry on Mr Asgari and Mr Marhoni, I feel that I am somewhat confused. This entry states that these two men were executed on 19 July 2005, yet the article that I have read in der Spiegel was certainly published before this date; my memory is that I must have read this particular article sometimes around 2002. I have checked all the links in the External Links section of the above-mentioned Wikipedia entry, and these links seem to be invariably originating from the same source, namely MEK. I am inclined to think that MEK may be acting disingenuously here (MEK is not known for acting honourably); unless there have been two similar cases (of two young men being hanged in Iran on account of identical charges), there is something wrong with 19 July 2005. In around 2002 I was living in one country, and in 2005 in another country, so that the chance of my memory failing (or mixing up events) is extremely small: I cannot recall to have read about the execution of two young men in Iran on charges of rape of a minor (or of homosexuality for that matter) in a der Spiegel of July 2005; in fact, I have a very clear memory of the place and even of the time of the day when I read that specific der Spiegel article.
You suggest that I help out with the LGBT rights in Iran. Well, I have not been to Iran for three decades, so that I have absolutely no first-hand experience of the more recent events taking place in Iran; what I know is through the public media here in the West.
The equivalent of lawāt is sodomy; lawāt appears to refer to Lot who was an inhabitant of Sodom and Gomorra (note that, depending on the religious school of thought, a particular sexual activity between a married heterosexual couple can constitute lawāt — to my best knowledge, this is not a peculiarity of Islamic Law, as for instance according to English Law, sodomy is illegal between married heterosexual couples; the law on this issue may have changed since I last checked it; in earlier times, in America oral sex constituted one of the acts of sodomy; this very fact is interestingly preserved in the definition of sodomy in the old American-English dictionaries - the contemporary English-English dictionaries do not include oral sex as an act of sodomy). I do not know the specific details of the Iranian law on sodomy and how acts of sodomy can be proved in courts of law, should someone be charge with this act, if it has involved two legally consenting adults. I suppose therefore that the majority, if not all, sodomy charges arise when someone has been raped, or at least one of the individuals concerned has been an adult and the other a child or a teenager (in which case the intercourse falls under rape, since legally the latter person could not have consented to the sexual act). In particular in the latter case, it is most likely that the parents of the minor lodge a complaint against the adult person. In such case, you have at least one person who can in principle accuse the other person and testify against in the court. In the case of two consenting adults, I do not know how the case can be brought to the court in the first place, and how a conviction can be secured in the second. I am not familiar with the details, but I believe that in Islam charges pertaining to sexual intercourse between two (or more) individuals can be considered as viable if the act(s) has (have) been witnessed by four reliable witnesses (the technical term for a reliable witness is Just Witness — thus, someone with an earlier criminal conviction does not qualify for appearing in court as a Just Witness). In fact, just seeing two people in each other's arms is not sufficient for deducing that these two had been involved in a sexual activity; there are some very complicated conditions that have to be met, before the two individuals can be considered as having been engaged in a sexual activity. All these make me believe that unless someone has been raped (in which case he or she can testify against the perpetrator in court) or one of the individuals involved has been a minor, it is virtually impossible to bring a case of sexual activity between two consenting adults (whether homosexual or heterosexual) to court, let stand secure a conviction (this is what in fact the former President of Iran, Mr Mohammad Khatami states in this video: [5]). Of course, what I have described above concerns the "ideal" situation; in reality, some judges presiding over courts are just plainly incompetent for the task, not to mention that in reality also some defence lawyers can be equally incompetent (recently I read a case of a woman hanged in Iran for having killed her husband, and it was a clear case of the defence lawyer being utterly incompetent; under no circumstance would the woman be conceivably convicted for murder; the case was clearly a manslaughter under any legal system and this led me to write a very angry letter to one of the women's groups in Iran for having failed this hapless woman; thus far they have not responded to my letter).
Hello. I just found your response to my 'fonts' question on the reference desk. You seem to have guessed all the things that could be wrong - and therein lies my confusion - I have a LCD monitor, in the normal position, at 768x1024 resolution, and windows is set to the same parameters. When I turn 'cleartype' on I can verify the effect as described in the article (by looking very closely at the screen) - it definately does what it is supposed to do.
However the overall effect is inferior to that with it turned off - I'm guessing that perhaps the display has slight gaps between the pixels that spoil the effect, or maybe the 'VGA' analogue cable that connects is slightly imperfect and degrades the performance.
I think I described it as 'crap' which was an overstatement by a long way, but it definately is worse and no better.. It may just be my personal taste. Perhaps my monitor has some sort of per-pixel colour bleed as with clear-type on I can see colour banding at the edge of the pixels - which theoretically (in the perfect case) wouldn't be visible. Anyway the text is more than clear enough to read in any case, so I am fine. (I've given up on the safari browser for now, despite it having some nice features.)
I have already apologized for my intemperate remarks against C.K. Raju, but what is the point of saying, "if he doesn't stop?" Where is the evidence that I have continued this behavior. I had never heard of Raju until this dispute began, and as far as I'm aware I've said nothing beyond what is quoted in the RfC (and in that window of time). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your careful and detailed reply. Yes, I do agree with you. My behavior is not something I am proud of and I will make a change in my response and add that I am not condoning my behavior and do not intend to repeat it. I do tend to go off the handle more easily than some other people on Wikipedia that I have worked with, for example, user:Nichalp. I am very envious that they can keep the equanimity even while battling the worst trolls. I asked user:Sunray, who is also manages to keep his cool, what his secret was, and he suggested that volunteering at MedCab might have helped him. I am seriously considering doing that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really saying that the "no recording" request is an issue of controversy that needs to be cited? I can't find anybody disputing this except you. TMLutas (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused as to why you directed me to the discussion on S.E.K. as the matter was settled like a month or more ago. What, exactly, am I supposed to understand about Wikipedia policy? ناهد𒀭(dAnāhita)𒅴 06:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So in this case, you are saying that the issue of privacy and comfort raised under BLP is (as I argued) the requisite issue when dealing with her request to keep her (male) birth name private? If so, I'm glad. She is notable for creating a language (one that has gotten quite a bit of coverage, actually!), not for being trans, and much of the information presented was incorrect. I couldn't specify how without breaking privacy, but it was wrong, and her birth name and state of her genitals is neither notable nor a public matter. ناهد𒀭(dAnāhita)𒅴 06:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
..to defile my page ;) Just kidding.. don't worry you can post criticism on it if it's constructive and well-meant. I don't mind that. The other guy was a bit specific case and that's why I told him not to defile my talk page :) Cheers. JosipMac (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nil Einne. I have a question about your Tony Blair comments. I just see you're taking a break from all the "dumb stuff" on Wikipedia. This may be more of that dumb stuff you want a break from :) As you know, some have deleted Mahathir's criticism of Blair's foray into Iraq, which Maharthir says constitutes a war crime. Mahathir is not the only one with that opinion (I suspect a percentage of the British population think that also), but he is one of the most prominent and outspoken about it. You made some comments on the Blair talk page, suggesting reasons that both inclusion and exclusion could be justified, but not explicitly stating it should stay or go. Problem is, others (well, one other) is using your comment as a claim of consensus that the information should be deleted. Is it possible for you to clarify your comment on the Blair talk page? My own opinion is that WP:UNDUE would be balanced by including comments of those who were in favour of Iraq (possibly they praise the invasion, saying it is necessary for world peace, or energy security, or whatever they thought was good about the invasion), balanced with criticism, such as Mahathir who thought Blair committed war crimes. Mahathir made the war crime comment numerous times, both while PM and after, which was widely reported at the time. Thanks for your consideration. Sorry to disturb your Wiki-restbreak. Regards, --Lester 02:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi--I responded to your comment on my talk page, in case you're interested: User talk:Narsil#Moving pages. In a nutshell: Yes, I honestly thought the move would be uncontroversial, but yes, I can see that I was mistaken about that--my apologies. In the future, I'll run similar moves by WP:RM, even if I think they're utterly innocuous. -- Narsil (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest the fact that this was added to the articles of two DIFFERENT prominent South African politicians (three minutes apart) by the same user, that it is entirely untrue to the point of being "interesting/bizarre" (13 children), that no other sources point to this fact, and that in many years of reading the BBC daily I have never seen an article (having nothing to do with Wikipedia) EXPLICITLY cite Wikipedia. The line being "And according to his Wikipedia entry, he is the youngest of 13 children." I'm sorry, that sounds fishy to me. But even if it isn't, "lazy journalism" like this is fraudulent, and something I do not expect from the BBC. Just my opinion. T L Miles (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my opinion. I respect that yours might differ. Have a good day! T L Miles (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In your recent edit, not only did you remove info comparing this to another film, but it appears you also removed all of the citations in that subsection which had info on the box office results of the film itself. Please do not remove that whole swathe of material, but rather at the very least retain the sources themselves, so that you do not then leave the entire subsection unsourced. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The weekly box office figures speak for themselves. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear in mind that the example I posted contains two featured pictures and one multipart featured sound: that particular combination wouldn't run at one time on the main page under any conditions. It happens to be the flagship example of a subproject called "A recording, a score, and a portrait" for Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Restoration, a project I founded. The goal of the subproject is to assemble quality free licensed recordings, sheet music, and portraits for as many composers and songwriters as possible. The long term goal of that subproject is a bit different from the drive to get featured sounds a little time on Wikipedia's main page.
I noticed that the featured article I wrote about Joan of Arc had been translated into 3 languages in 2.5 years. But the first picture I got featured at Wikimedia Commons had its caption translated into 2 dozen languages in a matter of months. It's easier to translate captions than whole articles, so why not build on that synergy where it matters most: with music? So far we have artists from three continents at Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Restoration/A recording, a score, and a portrait: even if a language edition of Wikipedia has just a one or two paragraph stub, a good media package conveys a lot of information about these people. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 22:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography[edit]
Given that you don't care either way, I think I'll just keep a watchful eye. Certainly a block could be justified, but it may be better just to monitor any future behavior. - Nunh-huh 13:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I have to post here and ask why you would insinuate that I said it was acceptable for men to beat their wives, and youths to beat and maim each other? At no point did I even hint that these things were acceptable. I think it is out of order that you would suggest that is my opinion. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you read it you will see I was pointing out my belief, whether you agree with it or not, that youths today are more violent towards elderly people than they were years ago. Why is that irrelevent to the discussion? Titch Tucker (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You amaze me! You have actually turned it around to imply that I put words into your mouth! I shall delete your reply to me on my talk page. You have obviously got too high an opinion of yourself, therefore there is no point in continuing this. You are welcome to do the same here. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there was a lot of misunderstanding between us. Arguing who put words into who's mouth is pretty futile and would only lead to another disagreement, so I think we should leave it there with no hard feelings and move on. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Regarding the 1996 family airlines thing there are second sources that discuss the 1996 incident. What should I do next? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. We need more votes again for our January 2009 collaboration. As of December 7, only 4 members have voted. Please do exercise your right to vote! Thanks! :-) White2020 (talk) 08:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just saw you voting on Jayvdb with the rationale that "if he had recognised this as a problem and said he would abstain on such issues it wouldn't be such an issue but he didn't". Just FYI, he in fact did: [6]. Fut.Perf.☼ 22:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I've decided to abstain instead Nil Einne (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hassle you but I'm very puzzled by your comments about privacy. I haven't commented directly on this and I certainly don't believe in full disclosure.
I'm emphatic that confidential and sensitive issues (outing, medical stuff etc) must be kept confidential by ArbCom. There is, for example, no point in disclosing all the evidence about an outing case, including unoversighted diffs, as that would have the effect of outing an editor.
However, there is considerable community unease about using secret evidence to sanction editors. In this instance, the answer is to see whether non-sensitive evidence exists that would prove the same point. In an outing example, you can establish that an editor has been outing without going into the detail of the information disclosed.
Overall, I believe that ArbCom should operate a great more transparently, which will probably mean explaining why things have been done the way they have. It does not mean full disclosure of everything to everyone. --ROGER DAVIEStalk 17:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Short (sic) general reply to potential queries[edit]
For those wondering why and how I voted, it's a rather complicated pattern with various issues and I expect some degree of randomness. Because I voted very late (not on purpose, I don't usually check my WL so had no idea of a vote until I happened to be reading Jimbo's page) I already had a very good idea of was likely to win, who could win and who was almost definitely not going to win.
Firstly, I voted in two or three phases, one where I looked through the candidates briefly and made a quickish decision, one where I looked in more detail particularly at certain candidates (mostly those who were borderline between winning and losing) and perhaps a final one where I checked some stuff to make sure I was right (although I did this most of the time). I will freely admit I didn't read all answers by candidates to questions (did anyone?), although I did read the statements (which IMHO are quite important). And I did as it turns out spend quite a numberof hours on deciding how to vote.
At first, my voting was a bit adhoc. If I came across something I liked or didn't like, I voted accordingly. If I was came across someone who I was unsure both ways, I put it in the too hard basket and left it. Mostly, this affected those who had no chance of winning, when I gave moral support if you like to those who for whatever reason I felt needed it and opposed those tho I felt I couldn't support. I looked at a variety of issues particularly in the later stages BLP and also whether or not the candidate seemed serious and comprehended the enormous task that is arbcom. And there were probably some candidates who I ended up treating more harshly then others for the same issue. Or to put it simply, did this candidate click for me? One thing which wasn't random is I did decide to support the two incumbents because I don't fully agree with the mood fo change. But all in all for most of the candidates on the lower end of the vote tally, perhaps don't take my vote too seriously either way, it was likely a bit random and ad-hoc. This applies to a far lesser degree to the top 3 candidates who while I did spend some time looking into them, probably not as much as the next 4-10 or so and felt less urgency (since based on tallies, the chance it would make any difference whether they are in the group that serves 3 years or 1 year, let alone whether they get through is close to zero and if it does happen would need to be analysed carefully). (Some would say I should have abstained on most of these candidates but I disagree.)
One thing which I disagreed with is the view of Sandy George who generally felt contributors definitely need to have extensive work in quality articles. While I do think we should have some members of that ilk, I think there's nothing wrong with contributors who have primarily worked in other areas. Another thing which I disagreed with was the unacceptability of anyone who contributes a lot to WR. As I mentioned in one of my votes, I find WR a generally stupid site, but I'm not going to penalise people for stuff on WR unless I feel the user's behaviour there reflects poorly on how they would act as an arbcom.
Besides BLP, one issue that ended up being often a decider for me (and since most of those at the top had decent views on BLP it was a big decider) was what they said about the OM case as well as confidentiality and private evidence. While I haven't ever looked extremely extensively at the OM case, indeed that and the big bruhaha RFC about arbcom largely passed me over, from what I have seen and read, I'm not convinced things were as bad many people feel. Mistakes were made and I've decided not to go into them since it is unnecessary and it may offend some. It did cause a lot of controversy, which as a bad thing but I don't believe it's entirely the arbcom's fault or a terrible stain on them.
And as for my views on discretion by the arbcom. I know quite a few don't agree with me but I believe given the nature of the arbcom, sometimes they do have to or it would be better to carry out proceedings in private. And yes, sometimes they will have to withold some evidence from the eyes even of those before them. This may not seem fair to some and is, I would agree, unacceptable in a court of law (for example, I find the plans for the Guantanamo trials digusting). I had started to elaborate further but I wrote was already very long and not even half-finished so I decided to stop and exclude it.
I will give one completely random made up example. Let's say a highly trusted editor meets or knows someone and for whatever reason they end up discussing wikipedia and they learn something about a user that they feel the arbcom needs to know about (e.g. of sockpuppetry). However they have no wish for their information to be revealed even to the person they met. Perhaps because they don't want people to they edit wikipedia (perhaps it's even illegal for them), perhaps they are afraid they will be harassed by the person who they met, perhaps it's their friend or relative, perhaps they work for the person who told them the information, whatever. In this case it's obvious you can't tell the accused party at all about this. Indeed you even have to be careful about approaching the user since if you tell the user 2 days after they discussed the matter with the other party there's a good chance they're going to put two and two together. So what do you do? Obviously you should look for other evidence to support the claims, as you should do in all cases although there is obviously greater urgency since the other party can't challenge this information, they can't for example offer evidence there is no way they could have met the other person because they've never been where they allegedly meet. And perhaps you find other evidence e.g. from a CU which while not conclusive supports the theory (it could for example not only reveal that sockpuppetry is possible but perhaps reveal that perhaps support the idea the user comes from a specific location or even uses a specific ISP which concurs with what the trusted user told you). But if the original evidence is particularly compelling and really your case isn't strong enough without it and the user who revealed the evidence highly trusted (perhaps even submits a sworn statement) do you really throw this evidence out because it can't be in anyway revealed to to the accused user? IMHO no, you accept the totality of evidence with due consideration that what can't be revealed has to be used with care since it can't be challenged, decide the case and reveal what you can. I'm not saying this is a excellent example. It was completely made up but I'm sure there are many other cases which I'm not aware of and examples I can't think of where you will have to use evidence that you can't reveal to the other party. I respect the view of those who don't agree with this, but I clearly have different views.
Based on all this, I analysed resonably carefully the views expressed by the various candidates on these matters (OM, private trials, confidential information, unrevealed evidence etc) and look for those most similar to mine particularly among the candidates ranking 4-10 who it looked like my vote could mean something. At a later stage (actually I noticed it earlier but never looked in to it) I came across User talk:Cynical/Archive 8 who queried the aspect of whether the candidate was point blank opposed to any evidence used which is not revealed to the other party and in case it's not yet obvious, is something I don't agree. And yes, I did reject those people who received support from cynical (except for carcharoth who while supported by cynical never seemed to express clear views to me on the matter nor did cynical say he did) after re-analysing what they said whether to her or in the questions if necessary (although that largely agreed with my own analysis except for coolhandluke). Most of the others were less clear cut and I recognise some of them may have even more extreme views just unwilling or unable to express them but that's the nature of things.
In summary I will say the arbcom needs to be seen to be fair. It needs to be trusted. And it also needs to work effectively in making wikipedia a better place. Above all it needs to be fair. Sometimes these goals coincide, sometimes they do not and I've voted on those I feel will best achieve that balance.
Thank you. While you correctly understand my position, I think my reasoning might interest you.
User:Lar has sometimes remarked that "Wikipedia doesn't do due process." I agree. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, and removing access from it is in no way analogous to removing a protected right. We don't need to be absolutely certain that someone's behavior is destructive—ArbCom does not conduct criminal trials, it just supports the interests of the encyclopedia (see, for example, my answer to UninvitedCompany #16).
So I don't oppose using secret evidence because it violates some sort of human right.
I oppose the practice for one simple reason: People lie.
One of the best ways to evaluate possibly-truthful claims is through cross-examination and scrutiny. When claims cannot be presented to the affected party, the best arguments against them are potentially being ignored. By conveying the allegations to the affected user, they have the opportunity to refute them. If they cannot, than we can be quite confident that the witness is correct. If, on the other hand, the witness refuses to let the evidence be forwarded, it can never go through rigorous validation. Moreover, I'm concerned about the moral hazard of allowing individual users to anonymously tar another. Again, people lie.
That doesn't mean that the committee shouldn't look for confirming evidence. Private allegations can be a hot tip, and I assure you that I will be tenacious about investigating all public and private allegations. It was an off-site tip that triggered the Mantanmoreland case, and I put a lot of work into substantially confirming the claims by using legitimate on-wiki evidence that User:Mantanmoreland was confronted with (and answered unconvincingly).
The bottom line is that I don't oppose secret evidence because editing is some sort of natural right. But rather I oppose secret evidence because it's bad at sorting out the truth, and confidence in the committee (and work on the encyclopedia) suffers when we don't get it right. Cool HandLuke 20:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doubtful that I will get any more responses at the Commons Village pump. Can you give me anymore information on how I might convert a Flash video to something else using VLC, or how I might even download it? The problem is that I can't seem to get at the source file. If I could get it onto my computer as a file I'm sure I could convert it into ogg directly or indirectly.
Clearly it's much more difficult to upload a video than a photo. I hope they can improve this by initially at least providing some documentation (I can do this part myself actually, though I want to know the best way(s) to do it first. Richard001 (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaminglawyerc 21:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear N.E., it seems we're both responding to another's* contribution on the Humanities Ref Desk, and I just want you to know: I generally deplore what I consider that user's ill-judged and sometimes downright offensive remarks on many topics, but certainly this recent one. I've tried to stay out of the current discussions, not the least because this morning my area's on alert for rocket attacks from Southern Lebanon and I've been busy counseling two visiting European Wikipedians (one of whom, here for a year, lives on the street where a residence for the elderly took a katyusha hit) as to how to get through the day. I look forward to more productive discussions on these and similar topics, and wish us a speedy and lasting ceasefire and aid to all those directly affected. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Update: I've seen fit to add this. Do you think the matter would further benefit from a posting on the Ref Desk Talk page? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When User:Rdsmith4 Usurped me from User:SRX to my present name of User:Truco, my edits were not connected (tied together), and so they are separate. May you fix that? He said he would do it but he hasn't been active lately.--Truco 16:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please double check that!!!I am in Goteborg at present completing a course and simply do not have any idea of what you are implying.If asking question is a crime,then Wikipedia shoudl make that explicit.RNaidu —Preceding unsigned comment added by RNaidu (talk • contribs) 11:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just read your note.I find the whole thinmg ridiculous.I have never been blocked in the few weeks I have been with the Wiki!And as far as abusing Wiki is concerned,I do not recall ever using an untoward word in the 30 or so edits to my name!Are you suggesting that all the 30 edits were untoward and copied from someone!(RNaidu (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I've been asking the developers about once per day to look into this, and I've heard no response yet. I'll keep it up until I get a reaction from somebody, which isn't an easy task. In any case, I haven't forgotten about it. — Dan | talk 22:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the official name of the Wikipedia article for Burma/Myanmar is Burma and not Myanmar, we should be consistent and your criticism about me making unilateral changes without due discussion is difficult to understand.
I made a minor change and duly explained my rationals for doing so on the talk page in question. I cannot possibly take in mind the view of all the individuals on other talk pages. I have however modified your change to Burma/Myanmar.
Your examples of "colour" and "petrol" are also completely irrelevant for the case as these deal with different spellings in American and British English. The question of Burma/Myanmar is not a grammatical question, it is a political as you certainly know.
Sponsianus (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your last message
I am sorry I posted on your user page instead of on the talk page, but then again, there isn't much to say.
Don't you have anything more important to remark than the petty correction that there is a difference between "grammar" and "spelling"? You know very well what I meant, but by all means, I stand corrected. So here's is what I have to say about your comparisons, now in an updated version:
Your examples of "colour" and "petrol" are also completely irrelevant for the case as these deal with different spellings in American and British English. The question of Burma/Myanmar is not a spelling/terminology question, it is a political as you certainly know.
You are frequently referring to a number of Wikipedia policies, apparently thinking that doing so could substitute real arguments. You wrote:
And yes, WP:ENGVAR does come into this discussion since the term Myanmar is much more common in some varieties of English and Burma may be more common in others.
Is this supposed to mean anything? The Wikipedia page on Burma, under "Names of the country" clearly states that various TV channels and newspapers have different policies, but also that the governments of the major English-speaking countries all prefer "Burma" to "Myanmar". These are not "varieties of English" as regulated by ENGVAR (which mainly regulates matters of different usage in British and American English), these are examples of organisations chosing different political policies.
I have written there: "user Nil Einne may have wrong impression due to 'biased history' and 'fake pro-Baba activity'"
Another user (RadiantEnergy) have made very good appointments there.
I invite you to follow the "news" there, and please give some advice of what can be done to save the article... and also the own Wikipedia, because as it is, the article is like a "dirty stain" on it, decreasing its credibility.
Are you aware of how bad the article currently is?
Be aware:
1) You can find no history in the history anymore.
2) Opposite POV is being fakely played by an user with the same POV!
Again: what is happening there is very serious. I am no Wikipedia "heavy user" or "expert" - I don't know where / how / who to warn about this very serious problem going on there.
You may ignore it, and I just wasted my time, or you can please forward this very serious allegations from me to someone else - I don't know your degree of expertise and influence here... but I am doing my part, warning.
are you really serious? what if I just posted a stanza? please reply on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind, but I've removed the above question completely as a request for medical advice. Please see my full reasoning here. I just wanted to let you know as one of the responders to the question. Thanks. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been on an IRC channel in years, so I don't really like the implication of your asking about it. Nor the comparison to "negro" and "nigger". Would you mind removing that part?
I have clarified the comment about IRC. I will not however be withdrawing my comment about the terms negro or 'nigger'. It was a fair comment. You are apparently unwilling to accept that the term homosexual is offensive in the context, whereas gay is relatively neutral. It is your right to feel however you feel about the terminilogy, but that is as irrelevant as the people who try to argue that negro or 'nigger' are equivalent to black or African-American. We stick with what the sources say and use, and the sources say and use that homosexual is likely to be considered offensive and that gay is preferred. Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stated my opinion once and didn't even argue the point. I don't see how that merits nasty comparisons between "homosexual" and "nigger". It's more of a provocation than an argument.
If you now accept that homosexual is usually offensive that's good. If not, then your comment seems largely irrelevant. The simple fact is both you and others have expressed a reluctance to accept that homosexual is often an offensive term despite being told it is, and it being very easy to find out it is from a large variety of sources (e.g. as I found in 1 minute when giving them to User talk:Mqduck) and means. The reason for this I don't understand (I've never understood why people insist on telling others what they should and shouldn't find offensive, for example I personally prefer the term Pākehā to refer to that part of my ethnicity, as do a number of Pākehā but while I will clear up misconceptions about the origin of the word, which are quite common, I will not try to dictate to people that they shouldn't find it offensive, some people do find it offensive and I accept that), and it's not really my concern. My point was and is, that certain terms are considered offensive by a large number of people. The fact that some people refuse to accept that is irrelevant in us deciding what term to use. This is the same whether the term is homosexual or 'nigger' or negro. For some LGB people, the term homosexual when used as an adjective is just as offensive as the term nigger or Jew so it is highly relevant to a discussion when people refuse to accept the term is offensive. It is my hope that people when people think about it, if they accept nigger or Jew or negro or whatever is offensive because people find it offensive, even if certain people don't find it offensive, they will realise that if people find the term homosexual offensive then it is offensive and should be avoided, regardless of whatever a few other people may think of the term. If this doesn't help you, then so be it. I didn't really make this clear enough in my response and I apologise for that, but my response was not solely directed at you, but rather at all people who refused to accept the term was offensive. I tried to give a completely answer so I could avoid the situation where I had to come back with further explainations because people refused to accept my answer, because they did not find the term offensive (as happened on IRC for example) and happens in other discussions. Personally I prefer to avoid back and forth too much, so I usually give relatively complete answers first up. This requires some degree of guessing as to what other issues may come up, and sometimes it's possible I am wrong, but as has been shown in the discussion in various places there are people who are unable to accept that homosexual is offensive so I don't think I was in general, even if I was wrong about you. It is my hope that my explaination helped give people pause for thought, and reduced the number of people who refused to accept the term homosexual is offensive, but I will of course never know if that was the case and in the end it doesn't matter. Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. To support my contention above [7]Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your taking the time to write me personally on the subject. I'm someone who (often) chooses his words carefully so I'm thankful that you shared that information and those links to me.
I think you may have misread my comment a bit, though. I responded there, so please read that, but here's the most important part: "You may not have noticed that one of the reasons I 'voted' for 'gay' over 'homosexual' was specifically that 'homosexual' is offensive to some - even though I didn't understand why." So I don't think we have any disagreements on the Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir article.
Anyway, while I was clearly ignorant about the word's connotation, I think the matter might be more nuanced than you realize. I wrote a friend of mine, a radical gay activist since the 60s, asking about the word. Here's what he said:
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
I wouldn't give much credibility to what people say is offensive. Mostly, it's their personal choice. Certainly, whoever told you "homosexuality" is offensive outside a clinical context is quite mixed up.
[...]
I thought the use of "gay" was on John Lauritsen's Web site, but a quick glance didn't turn it up, though it could be there in his GLF section [I found it here]. You might check out his Web site if you haven't. Just google his name and his homepage will pop up.
In brief, "gay" was chosen by the immediate post-Stonewallers precisely because it was an inclusive term, unlike "sodomite," say, or "lesbian." It also carried that obvious subtext meaning, even though the word itself originated in the prostitution subculture. But "homosexual" was used widely, and still is, in the post-Stonewall period. You might check out the first issue of /Come Out!/, of which a facsimile is provided on Lauritsen's Web site.
[...]
Some activists have always objected to "homosexual" as too clinical sounding. Others, myself included, have always liked it precisely because it is so "in your face." There's nothing closety about using that word. Some people objected (wrongly, in my view) to it because they felt it put the focus on sex. But what the hell is wrong with sex? This latter argument came in stronger the farther away from radical challenging of heterodominant society the gay/lez movement got.
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
It's an interesting issue. --MQDuck 23:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You did not misunderstand my commentary "In Icelandic, 'homosexual' may be an offensive word" and "[the] problem here, from what I gather, is that in other languages, their translation of 'homosexual' has a negative connotation, something unfamiliar to English speakers (at least in the US)." What you misunderstood was which side I was ultimately taking on the issue of what language the article should use. --MQDuck 13:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nil Einne:
I am removing this from the Ref Desk as I don't want to appear to add to a soap-box debate I shouldn't have joined in the first place. While I don't hold you responsible for the content of the clarification, and I do thank you for your desire to make this matter clear, it remains double talk or bafflegab, if you like, to most of us. Any person held in continuing custody by an enemy power, whether lawful combatant, protected person, civilian or unlawful combatant is entitled to be treated humanely. There may be agreed and accepted differences in their several rights to trial, comunication and other "privileges", but not even Bush, with all his twisting and turning, eliminated the right to humane treatment for every category of prisoner. "Humane treatment" means not subject to "physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion". Waterboarding is a form of coercion. It is unacceptable behaviour, especially from a country that makes much of its humanity. Please don't feel under attack, even if you don't agree with me. This is in no way personal. It became a rant at about the third word and I lack the discipline this morning just to erase it. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced now I should just have gone with my first instinct and deleted my text. It is a rant, true, but not, not, at you. Quite the contrary. I assumed, from the way in which you had worded your clarification, that we were likely to be in agreement on the principles and that your page would thus be a safe place to park my rant. You would know what touched it off, but, sharing most of the views, would not feel under attack. That I might have misinterpreted your being in agreement, I thought I covered by "Please don't feel under attack, even if you don't agree with me". The Ref Desk section, on the other hand, would not have been safe as I would there have been adding more fuel to the fire. As for "a country that makes much of its humanity", my irony meter was obviously set way too low. In short, I humbly and deeply apologise for any distress I have caused you, however inadvertently. I always advised editors I supervised that if someone can read what you have written and conclude it means something other than you meant it to mean, the fault is in the the writing and not the reading. I wrote poorly and you have been upset as a consequence. Please feel free to remove it all, though there may be a lesson in here useful to others in how not to start a rant. I have inserted the whole onto my page for that reason. The good part is that your Sunday can only improve from here. I am so very sorry. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My answer was intended to simplify for the OP (seemingly not a native English speaker nor conversant with electrics) the rather complicated and discursive responses he received from the several helpful and knowledgeable responders. Best wishes. Richard Avery (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you the same "Nil Einne" who posted to the RepRap project's "Objects.RepRap.Org - Any volunteers?" thread?
Presuming that you are (...and persuming that I'm the same User:SteveBaker who spent time hanging out there before it all fizzled...which I am!) - what do you think ought to happen with that site?
IMHO, the world needs a decent repository of free 3D models - not just for RepRap - but for OpenSourced games, for animations in Wikipedia, for free movies...all sorts of things. We have 2D raster images and SVG images in Commons - but what about 3D models, mocap data, texture maps?
I'm kinda thinking that this would be a good thing to hand over to WikiCommons (and thereby cause the final demise of Objects.RepRap.org). Nobody is contributing to the RepRap repository - and I think that if it ever DID take off, they would rapidly sink into an unsustainable mire of vandalism and copyvio's with not enough people to fix it. But I suspect that many WikiCommons folk might regard this as beyond their remit.
I would greatly value an opportunity to chat with another experienced Wikipedian over this - the folks on RepRap.org are sadly unqualified in this regard - but that is a project on which I deeply want to make a contribution, and my background in both Wiki's and 3D graphics make this the obvious place to attack it.
There is another (tangentially related) project that I just got ensnared in with a similar problem. A guy I know at work is heading up a team to build an OpenSourced ink-jet technology machine that can print electronic circuits onto flexible plastic substrates. The mechanism they need to drive the printhead would look a lot like a RepRap - and RepRap needs to be able to make it's own circuit boards...so there is synergy. But more than that - this other project also needs a repository for open circuit-board designs...this is MUCH further from WikiCommon's remit...but perhaps a common solution would work out that way?
Anyway - if you are interested in talking some more. We can talk here - or on my Talk: page - or on Objects.RepRap.org (please let me know which talk page!) or we could do it via eMail (I'm at mailto:steve@sjbaker.org )...whatever.
I think I must advise you that I had lodged a complaint against you!I logged in after more than a month to find your scurrilous comments.Beng a senior academic with Madras University,I take that as an affront.I was unblocked.Since you are unlikely to do resort to the logical next step and rescind what you said in your note,I think it is best that my annoyance is recorded on your page.By the way the adminstrator was decent enough to apologise for having acted on your complaint.(Deva 840 (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Clearly what you thought was evidence has been proven to be garbage!And it was the original adminstrator who blocked me who apologised after looking at my credentials and re-examining the evidence!No point mentioning it to you as you are unlikely to understand but being a senior academic probably older than you I must say at the risk of appearing patronising(which is far from my intent)that the evidence you mentioned should have been more carefully scrutinised before you made the scurrilous allegation.I am not in a habit of logging regularly,only one every few months to look at information but I hope I shall not be confronted with this demeanour again.(Deva 840 (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
It is about time that you begin to apprecite what the Wiki demnds -civility and fairness which you seem to have forgotten in your inflated sense of self-importance which is reflected in your arrogance that emerges from your entire conduct!I sincerely hope this is a temporary abberation from your usual conduct else I am certain someone more hotheaded than myself is going to report you for unacceptable deviation from teh conduct required of wiki editors as I understand it!I am inclined to dismiss that as a sign of foray into immaturity and as I said hope it is temporary!
My problem since you ask is that you had indulged in making scurrilous allegation as I said in my last communication to you without resorting to acceptable standards of investagation and presenting them to the administrators in a twisted manner!
And how about some truth for a change!I looked at your entire tirade and nowhere did I find your comment that you thought evidence against me was weak as you point out in your comment on my talk page!
And quite frankly even I couln't care less for someone who in his arraogance can even hypothetically suggest that Ban ki Moon or Nobel Laureates may resort to the sort of chicanery which you seem to level without evidence!I do however care about Wikipedia and hope with all sincerity that this needless act of recklessness resulting form your hasty actions and presumptions woudl end here once and for all!(Deva 840 (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
It is about time that a few things need to be spelled out!
Let me start by stating that I am indeed very touched by your concern about my lack of facility in English and your valiant efforts to assist!I am not sure what my colleagues at Balliol College Oxford where I spent 3 years for my doctorate and All Souls College where I was a Fellow for a year would have to say to that-maybe they missed something I lack which your genius has spotted!!!
And as far as my association with Wikipedia goes,I have always used it as a tool to acquire information and learn rather than rush into editing!I have always believed that if the editors were sparing with their edits the forum would be more informative and useful and as a consequence in all my time have been extremely conservative with my edits i.e.unless I am very sure of something I don't rush to edit in the first place!Rather I am quite content to browse and learn!Unlike it appears yourself as you seem to enjoy raising accusatory fingers at others!!!And your good faith as you protest would have been more credible had you displayed the same humility as the editor named Avi did!!!Within two hour of my protest,I had recieved an unequivocal and comprehensive apology!!He did not try to pathetically defend teh indefensible!And I do not think the fact that nobody else has complained is reflective of a faith in your actions-people just don't usually bother to go on an expedition to downgrade others to gain some sort of pleasure!
I am simply not concerned whetehr the other people you reported are still blocked-that does not concern me one tiny iota!All I am concerned about is when I logged in after my return from abroad I noticed your scurillous comments!And as I do not use a pseudonym,perhaps some of my students might have noticed the garbage that was presented as evidence-and wondered what Prof.Devarajan was upto!Maybe in a skewered manner to make it look credible!And the unfortunate consequences!
It is obvious that you are not endowed with sufficient humility to realse what shoudl be done if your actions do turn out to be the result of an innocent error!We all make errors of judgement and all of us have inflicted damage on others without meaning to do so.I have been guilty of a fair number of those misjudgements myself!But I have always understood whre the reaction from teh victim is coming from and pleaded human failings when that happens not egregiosly tried to present an aura of arrogant defiance!
Unless my English is really as you believe it to be,I think I understand teh Wikipedia as well as anybody!And if you do not understand that people like Nobel Laureates and Ban ki Moon have no need to indulge in disreputable conduct like that and make themselves vulnerable to people like yourself who would pounce at the opportunity to level charges and insult in order to satisfy their egos well the you have a problem!From what you said it was clear that you do not expect those people to be above that conduct-and good luck with that conviction!That is my reading of your logic-and correct my English if you feel it needs correction!
I am normally a very patient person but I do not suffer arrogance from others gladly!To me that is the ultimate in bad behaviour!Nor do I bother abour some pipsqueaks making uninformed remarks!
But I shall continue to be a visitor to teh Wikipedia and if need be an occasional contributor!And sincerely hope this experience would teach you a few lessons!(Deva 840 (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I tried to speak in english here even if its my english is not that fluent, if im fluent in english, so i'll speak in english here!! sorry about that for being wikipedia a social network. --Secaundis • (myTalk) • (myContribs) 10:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the start, I dont like to contribute to the Tagalog Wikipedia, because no one read it, so my contributions will not be read. Here in English many filipinos and even foreigners read my contributions in the Santa Maria, Bulacan article, around 100 views everyday compare to only 5 or even 2 in the Tagalog. And all my contributions here are all english! I only speak tagalog in my talkpages and WHEN im talking to Ramz Trinidad bcoz he is not fluent in English either. I cannot say what's in my mind if I speak english (and if its too long). Please understand me.. Thank you. --Secaundis • (myTalk) • (myContribs) 11:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nil Einne has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Nil Einne's day!
For your contributions to the Reference Desks and to the project,
enjoy being the Star of the day, Nil Einne!
High marks for reading comprehension and insight (and sharing!)[edit]
Dear Nil Einne, I much admire and appreciate your response to my offering on the RD discussion page, and helping others understand it. It hadn't occurred to me that in their virtual company I might need to compose my remarks more clearly, so that's something for me to work on in the future. It's good that life is a continual learning process; it's even better when you have sincerely helpful companions. Keep up the good work on behalf of all, and have a happy spring and festival of your choice! -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaks to your User page & User talk page archive[edit]
Me again. I tried to do a cleanup on your User page where there appear to be two misplaced comments dated 28 Feb 2008. I got as far as posting them to Archive 1 of your User talk page. Removing them from your User page, though, got into formatting syntax too complex for me to perform, so please follow through as you see fit. Hope I've been of some help, anyway! -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You left a comment on my talk page, but it didn't say anything besides saying that I suck. It makes you look stupid if you attack someone but cant even say what you disagree with. If you are going to attack me, attack my edits, attack a string of them, but don't just attack my persona without reason. If that is all you can do: go away.Scientus (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, s/he dassn't get away with it, not on ourwatch! I appreciate your pickup/treatment/follow-through; couldn't've done better myself. As a RL professional translator/editor from a gender-marked language to one far less so, I do my share of wrangling the awkwardness emerging from this matter so am probably more aware of it than the average WP reader. Renderings must stay true to source, particularly published ones, and the output isn't always satisfactory to all. (Then again, so few things in life truly are...?) While you and I take evidently WP seriously and the responsibility that comes with it, realistically we know how many factors—including our own having and taking the time to make fixes or not—result in the status quo falling short of the optimal. Which makes your intervention all the more valued, and for this you have my esteem, and thanks on behalf of all. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you read way too much into way too little[edit]
I have no personal feelings toward mexicans. In fact, I don't really compete with them at all as I live in hawaii. Here the biggest competition for jobs are the locals and japanese. Anyway. I pointed out that they have never done the right thing in regards to giving mexicans the benefit of the doubt. The usually would label this family as aliens whereas they instead labeled them visitors. I was neither objecting nor promoting use of the term. I was merely scoffing at the idea of the NYT doing the right thing for once. I never said anything about mexicans being stupid, or using the NYT to find jobs. I said they regularly run articles lamenting the bad job market and invariably the article blames alien mexicans for the lack of jobs. get your facts straight before attacking someone. And even then, you probably still shouldn't go on the attack. Your shortsided and ill informed attack shows poor form.Drew R. Smith (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nil Einne. You have new messages at Zigger's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Also, you mentioned to me that you trust professionals more than "wikipedians" (re SARS). Well, my wife is a respiratory therapist at a major hospital in Central New York State. When the topic was breached, her (and that of the hospital) was one of "so?" This strain of flu is very different because SARS already existed. That is why WHO overblew things. It isn't opinion. SARS was already around, the real problem was that there was very little news going on. BFritzen (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment at WT:RT made me laugh! Thanks. PS: I don't regret anything; I'll just wait for another day to pass till WHO and CDC change their minds and I'm (momentarily) right again. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. It just felt like the <several>th time that I had attempted to put some facts, or at least good wikilinks, into a heated discussion, only to have them ignored, i.e. not commented on. In a few cases, the info I have offered has been re-offered later by someone else (not you!), thus proving the entire futility of my efforts. The last couple of times this has happened, I have tried to coolly point this out. It is so annoying to be involuntarily invisible. So thanks for accepting that. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I get for writing from memory. I had (mis)remembered that the hoax had been by a friend of the victim; thanks for making the correction. Nice to know that someone's reading my essay. :D Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article for Duke University Newspaper, The Chronicle, on Duke Wikipedia Page[edit]
Hi there! I apologize in advance if this is the incorrect way to communicate with you, but I've never used "talk" before. I'm a rising sophomore at Duke University and am writing an article for the paper on Duke's Wikipedia page, and I had noticed you had edited that article. I was just wondering why you edited the page, if you have any affiliation with the University, and any and all comments you may have regarding the page. Feel free to reach me here, via email: haa3@duke.edu , or via AIM: haahaamagician . Thank you very much!
Haahaamagician (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nil, I meant to say 'thanks' for nudging me about the ongoing discussion re. Watts the 'meteorologist'. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonoApe (talk • contribs) 17:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the reaction to his use of the term "gook" being described as "mixed". I just want to make sure that it be known that they are still supportive of him despite/because of his comments. DHN (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think they come in 1 litre plastic bottles in Oz too, but I can't find a supporting reference. (However, there's no supporting reference for 1.1, 2 or 3 litres anyway!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. (It's beyond me why they come in 1.1 litre containers at all, especially when they come in both 1 litre cartons and bottles, but, they do. I suspect logic doesn't have very much to do with it ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for softening your comment to Quentinwllcs (your second edit) – a bit of kindness never goes amiss :) -- Hebrides (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw. I turned the IP in. I suspect it's a multi-use IP, and in any case the admins don't seem to be watching AIV for the last couple of hours or so, so nothing may come of it, but whatever. I thought there was a sincere question in there somewhere, but it was largely baiting. Good riddance. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 10:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind me posting here, this is just a single comment, please don't cite anything to the Sun it is a very poor source, and I also think you have duplicated unnecessilary the fact that the people asked for a meeting and didn't get one. Anyhow, please not the sun it is rubbish as a cite. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case can you please give reference to Mr Djanogly's rebuttal statements? The articles provided are very biased and do not provide an impartial account. Furthermore, they contain a number of inaccuracies.
This can provide a better balanced article than that solely provided by the Daily Telegraph, whom are not a neutral party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.135.105 (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to a search engine, not any copyright works directly. My link was not more of a copyright violation than linking to a google search string. Your removal of the link was uncalled for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I did link to a page on mininova, not to a .torrent file. My link takes you to the page detailing the torrent information, NOT the .torrent file. Besides, a .torrent file isn't copyright either, it's just a text file with ip information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I still think you're wrong but I don't want to argue. I'll not help people in the future by providing links. Happy editing :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, I've very tired so I haven't read your wall of text yet (I will tomorrow!) but I've agreed not to post the link so can we leave it at that please :) I was only trying to be helpful, I'm sorry I broke some policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.136 (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I've heard of LightCurrent a few times before around the Desks (even been accused of being LC!) but I'm not really familiar with them or their posting style —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.133 (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for weighing in. Your continued input in the matter until a resolution is reached would be appreciated if you would like to provide it. Thanks, --69.208.131.53 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you not mind weighing in on the John Paul II -- too much info for this article discussion, especially its subsection? I agree with Robpinion about the long summary, and feel that you are likely to agree about that as well due to what you stated in the Discussion of Wwallacee's second changes to article section, despite the summary Robpinion is complaining about seeming to partly be in 4672mtem's own words, but it is Robpinion's other edits I just moments ago disagreed with. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much both for your correction of Valence and your posting on my web page. Actually my mother tongues are English and Italian, but I haven't spoken much Italian for over 30 years. I'm living in francophone Switzerland, so I speak a lot of French. That caused the mistake. Valencia in French is Valence, and I subconciously used that instead of the correct English. Since there is also a Valence in France, it was important to correct the error and I appreciate your having done so.--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WRT "the tail end of BLP" -- I regard BLP1e as the tail end of BLP. It seems to me to be an afterthought.
I do not believe that anyone's perception that an article about an individual only talked about "one event" merits the extreme remedy of deletion on sight without warning -- particularly when "one event" isn't defined anywhere, and the perception of what is "one event" is highly subjective.
A couple of years ago one wise guy made this point very effectively by arguing, tongue in cheek, that the article on then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair should be deleted as a violation of BLP1e. The wise-guy claimed the only event Blair was known for was his support of George W. Bush's war policy. The wise guy suggested that the wikipedia would be improved if the Blair article was deleted, and the only material worth covering in it -- his support for the Bush war policy, be pasted into George Bush's article. I don't think the wise-guy cited them, but there were a bunch of articles and editorials that referred to Blair as "George Bush's lap-dog" to back up that interpretation. Geo Swan (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the talk page? Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Balance.3F_or_not.3F My goal was to put the Storch/Mann relationship in perspective. I am worried that my phrasing is clumsy, but I don't see the timing of the earlier criticism as a problem, it's part of the point. This isn't an independent voice calling for recusal, but someone with a past contentious relationship. --SPhilbrickT 00:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been interesting working with you to clean up what was considered to be the most widely contentious article in the world (Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident). I was certainly expecting more folks than just you and me. I'm done with the work I've been itching to do, and going off line for a while. Keep up the good work, Nil! Madman (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your willful violation of Wikipedia's Talk Guidelines[edit]
Per WP:TALK and standard practice on wikipedia, please do not add discussions the the beginning of talk pages and even worse, do not add them to the beginning of an existing discussion (i.e. at the beginning existing topic heading). I have removed your discussion here [9] and not bothered to add it back since it didn't seem to related much to improve the article which is the purpose of talk pages. I won't however remove it if you add it to a new discussion or the end of a relevant existing discussion Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. The cited *guidelines* say nothing of the kind. They discuss that new Topics should be placed at the bottom of the page - not posts. The guidelines do say, however "Be welcoming to newcomers: People new to Wikipedia may be unfamiliar with policy and conventions. Please do not bite the newcomers. If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake. Politely and gently point out their mistake, reference the relevant policy/guideline/help pages, and suggest a better approach." Since your action in deleting my post appears a willful and deliberate violation of this guideline I have replaced my comments at the top of the page. --DaleEastman (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You find time to lecture me but none to point out that I was acting honestly? Three times I was accused of falsifying a source, an accusation that was allowed to colour the edit-warring allegation. You knew this claim was untrue (and Chelydramat has since withdrawn the accusation; I'm pursuing Beetstra) but couldn't find a moment to point out it was unfounded?
Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute said the e-mails showed that some climate scientists "are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research. Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."
"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."
How could it be construed as contentious to merely include six words cut from the middle of a direct quote that was already in the article. Was it not relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value?Dduff442 (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit of boilerplate with which I'm contacting the folks most involved in the original discussion. I have no vested interest in the outcome. Hi, it's been nearly three years, but maybe you remember the fuss over the dab page Les Balsiger and the article Les Balsiger (activist). In a nutshell, to the best of my recollection, a college administrator with the same name as an anti-Catholic activist contacted Wikipedia after attempting to disambiguate himself from the activist. The administrator is a fine person, but as-of-yet non-notable.
In what was more-or-less an official Wikimedia Foundation action by User:BradPatrick, who was the foundation's legal counsel at the time, it was determined that a dab page should be created despite the fact that it didn't fit in with MOS:DABRL. Now a user insists that the Les Balsiger (activist) page be redirected to the Les Balsiger dab page. That is the current state of pages. I didn't agree with the initial decision that we needed a dab page, but I wish to uphold the decision made at the Afd. Should we reopen the Afd, or has the issue run its course?
Brad Patrick indicates that he's no longer to be contacted about Wikipedia legal matters, so I will be e-mailing this message to Mike Godwin via info-en at wikimedia dot org.
If the pages are kept in their current state, a history page merge may be in order and/or the talk pages need to be put in the correct places.
Thank you for your civility. As I stated on the atricle's section on the notice page for BLP, let us simply reword the content to make it more neutral. Removing it altogether is not appropriate. by hajatvrc at 06:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point (which I did not express clearly) was simply that any experienced editor could have reworded the content in one quick edit to make it neutral and make sure the material was actually supported by the cited sources. This would have eliminated the problem of the POV material remaining on the article while a dispute was going on. If that had been done and there was further discontent, then a debate should have arisen. But because all people did was revert the edits and create a debate destined to be long and tedious, we are now stuck in that debate until people agree to reword the content and on what that reworded content is going to say. If I were to reword it now on my own it would get reverted, even if I were to reword it to something that would not have originally been contentious. by hajatvrc at 06:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to acknowledge that I was wrong to be so defensive and snippy in my response to your revert ("it's rich..." etc). This contributed to things getting out of hand and did precede the other issues we've gone over in such detail. I accept also that it's easy to overlook something written by a third party (e.g. Chelydramat's allegation) in the course of what was a drawn-out dispute. Dduff442 (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice collection of links, way to do all the hard digging! Next time we can just link to your post instead of to all those other ones! Thanks, ~ Amory(u • t • c) 01:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything you said here -- including that the RD talk page isn't the place to resolve any of it. (And I was just about to say so there when you reverted yourself.) —Steve Summit (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came across some stuff that makes me think one way or the other this may become a non issue soon & also decided it best to avoid it becoming too much of a criticism of BWH thread so decided to let it be for now Nil Einne (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you mean "eligble" ("available for"), not "illegible" (cannot be read) here. Both are correct English, but only one makes sense to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The account User:Brickfield is indeed mine. It is mine. I created that account. As a sign of good faith, I confess, admit, and disclose that it is mine.
Articles in the topic area of climate change are under general sanctions due to continued disruptive editing[edit]
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure when you'll get this, perhaps someone else would have already fixed the item. But if not, while I agree the wording was confusing for the Cadbury item was confusing, your change reintroduced a problem someone had already pointed out in WP:Main Page/Errors and someone had modified the wording in an attempt to improve. I've proposed a new wording in the Errors pages, feel free to use your own but your current wording is IMHO definitely equally misleading Nil Einne (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know about this. I've changed the blurb on ITN as suggested on WP:ERRORS. Hope this works better. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusation that I purposefully made a "royal mess" of Cocoa Krispies is completely unfounded. The "copy and paste move" was done only because, at that time, I was unaware of the WP:RM process. Indeed, Wikipedia acknowledges that this is not uncommon given that copying and pasting was the manner in which such moves were originally carried out. Not to mention that it is intuitive for many people -- why would someone who recognizes that a move can be effected by copying and pasting, but who is unaware of the existence of WP:RM, search for how to effect that move when they already know how to do so (albeit improperly by WP standards)?
Second, and again given my ignorance at the time of the WP:RM process, I did not make the move in a fit of pique after being told not to, as you imply. Seven months after the original botched redirect, I opened a discussion on the now-archived article talk page -- just as was done when the article name was first changed from Cocoa Krispies to Coco Pops. There were no objections, so I effected the move. Admittedly, I did so after only three days, but I note that the original change was effected on August 6, 2006, only three days after being noticed on WP:RM -- despite WP:RM providing for a seven-day minimum to reach a consensus.
Finally, as to the merits, the cereal is also known as "Choco Krispis" in many, many different countries. There was no mention of this when the four, count 'em, four Wikipedians who supported a change from "Cocoa Krispies" to "Coco Pops" reached their ostensible consensus on the basis that, because the cereal was known as "Coco Pops" in a number of countries outside of the U.S., the article should therefore have that title. Why not "Choco Krispis"? Because the countries in which it is known by that name are Spanish-speaking? Then we would have an anti-Hispanic bias, wouldn't we?
The sensible solution can be seen in the Frosted Flakes article. Like Cocoa Krispies, Frosted Flakes are known as "Frosties" in many if not all of the same countries in which Cocoa Krispies are known as "Coco Pops" -- and are known as "Zucaritas" in the same countries in which Cocoa Krispies are known as "Choco Krispis." Yet the article is not entitled "Frosties" for the reasons discussed on the article's talk page -- and those reasons apply with full force here. I would let it lie and let the administrators clean up real messes. This article is fine now. Jhw57 (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone is offensive and unnecessarily accusatory. You are, of course, free to draw whatever inferences you may from what I did, but that does not make them correct. Unless you are an omniscient, you are not qualified to make judgments on one's intent and level of familiarity with WP. I shall not waste my time further with the likes of you. Do what you feel you have to do, because apparently you have nothing better to do.Jhw57 (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, firstly I take offense at you basically telling me to back off from supporting people who I feel are being mistreated. I'm a strong believer in second, third, fourth chances, especially on the internet. There is never a way to know for sure if people are trolls or not, why not assume good faith? It could always be an innocent person, and I'm not willing to accept them as collateral damage and I will always stand up for them. Even if they are trolls, assuming good faith and helping them anyway don't hurt, and can often be more effective in stopping them in the future than outright hamfisted "revert block ignore" mentality. Someone who originally started out as a troll might decide to stop based on a good experience; they certainly won't stop based on a bad one. And I know for a fact that back in the day many users were accused of being me, reverted and blocked when they were completely innocent. That's one of the main reasons I take such a strong view in defending people who are accused of trolled based on very little evidence (same ISP, same range etc etc means very little. Oh and lol at you "outing" me, I'm certainly not trying to conceal my past so don't act like I am.
On 2 February 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article MMR vaccine controversy, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
regarding the reference desk question: Removing an overlay[edit]
I tried looking through the HTML and removing certain bits that I thought might have been causing the overlay, but wasn't able to find out what. I also tried copyinh some of the URLs from the HTML and putting them in my address bar but they would always redirect back to the front page such as url's like ...409-3_3-1E-Step1_300.swf . How where you able to do so? I then installed the addon, "Download Flash and Video" and and was able to download this: ...409-3_3-1E-Step1_96.swf which would not open unless I decompiled it. But after then, I was able to see only one step of the problem which consited of like 3. The way you did it, where you able to view all the steps? 198.188.150.134 (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to original question Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 15 February 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 America's Cup, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
With only a few edits since starting in the fall, Cesar isn't signed in often enough to have any clue about my alleged imperfections. I wonder which IP or IP's he normally edits under? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to type all that out. I am really sorry about this entire situation. I truly do not understand why people have made such an issue out of this, and it baffles me even more that User:Kainaw apparently thinks I planned it. I do want to reform, and at least in my opinion I have reformed; I have made every effort to post constructively in the last 2 years. I appreciate the points you made, and I will try to take them on board. With regards to defending ips, I won't stop defending ips or anyone for that matter who I feel is being mistreated, but I will try and refrain from commenting in those hard to tell situations as you've pointed out it just causes tension and untimely my comments make little difference once some admin has decided they're "guilty" anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.204 (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You made 3 strikeouts here but I am really really sure you will want to complete the 3rd one from usually delt to usually dealt. IMO you can delete my posted questions and the whole redundant "bickering" box that followed, if you like. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For my benefit, I've been categorizing IP pages used by common trolls. I've been using a template that labels the IP page as a suspected sock of the original account - which means that I need the original account name. I cannot find the original account name for the Avril troll. Do you remember what it was? Is there already a list of socks that I can add the IP pages to? -- kainaw™ 05:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Having one case allows me to tag the IP addresses so when I see one of the addresses I can easily see all that have actually been used. That way, I won't be making the incorrect claim that the entire range is used by that user. I can state specifically which addresses have been used. -- kainaw™ 14:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not suggest tagging them. There is a reason the case page, and all of the socks userpages were deleted per WP:DENT. This banned user has indicated on a number of occasions that they like seeing the damage they have done, and attempt to make their sock category larger than anyone elses. After I deleted the request for checkuser subpage, and all the associated userpages Avril slowed down and actually left for a while. The best way to respond to this user is reverting, blocking, and ignoring. Tiptoetytalk 22:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please can we just let this go now? I'm refraining from the talk page because that's where all the problems erupted. I'm trying to be helpful elsewhere, answering questions etc. About the ip, I switched the cable between computers for updates on the other computer which then got a new ip. When I switched the cable back to my current computer it returned to the previous address —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.204 (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, I admit that haven't followed the Flagged Revisions debate closely -- let alone BLP, with all of its twists & turns -- but my impressions about its value is based on public statements made by Jimmy Wales. (If you don't believe me, I could do a search for them, but at one point he made the very bold statement in a public interview that he was going to insist on Flagged Revisions being implemented.) When the poll I linked to failed to gather a 2/3 approval, the matter was then dropped without any explanation by either him or one of the Wikipedians with whom he communicates. While I have no strong opinion about the matter one way or another, I was disheartened by how the proposal was dropped, & it only strengthened my current cynical opinion on not only his role with Wikipedia but the entire BLP matter.
However, speaking as someone who has been on the sidelines of the entire debate -- like many Wikipedians -- my concern has been that not enough has been done to simply educate the rest of us exactly what the size & nature of the problem is, so we can either contribute to the debate, or at least acquiesce in the result. At this point, I find it hard not to conclude that biographical articles on living people are a problem simply because a vociferous minority insists that it is one. And if a long-term Wikipedian like me is skeptical, just think what newer members might think. However, whenever I have questioned this assertion & asked for more information, I have been met with abuse & vilification -- simply take a look at my Talk page. (Had I understood this comment better at the time, for example, I would have asked for the person to be appropriately sanctioned for making an irresponsible personal attack.)
My entire point is not to do away with the WP:BLP policy; no one who believes in the goals of Wikipedia honestly wants unreasonably negative information on our articles. What I have been trying to communicate to its advocates is that the rest of us need to be convinced -- with understandable evidence -- that it is such an overwhelming problem that it deserves new & extreme responses. I say this because I have seen it causing more problems in many cases than it solves, & unless implemented in a careful manner it will cause the same problems & community divisions that other aggressive enforcement campaigns have caused. And I hope someone who hasn't found himself increasingly ignored for saying this can pass this message along so that the goals of this policy are accomplished without also causing the damage I fear will happen. -- llywrch (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reporting Nil Einne to WP:Sock Puppet Investigations[edit]
Due to their simultaneous hostility to the postings of an IP editor on WP:BLPN, and the interesting phonetic similarity of their names, I will be reporting both "Nil Einne" and "NeilN" to WP:SPI 71.36.120.162 (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This edit to TS's comment is obviously against talk page guidelines, and in my understanding is unacceptable vandalism. Please undo that change. Thanks, dave souza, talk 17:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for informing me of that. I'm not entirely sure what happened but I think it was an accidential drag and drop cut and paste/insert as I do that on occasion. Whatever the case it was unintentional and I've reverted it now Nil Einne (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for fixing it, I was surprised to see you making that edit and am very glad to know that it was an accidental edit. Much appreciated, dave souza, talk 19:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...i don't really go by SS, for obvious reasons. Stephan is fine, or StS if you want to use initials. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to tell you the truth about why I changed my username from User:Bowei Huang to User:A1DF67. But there is a problem. The problem is that if I told you, you wouldn't believe it. I mean, I don't think you would believe it. Nobody would believe it. I don't think anybody would believe it. If I told you it, you would probably think that I was making it up. I think that that is what you would think if I told you it. That is the problem. That is the reason why I didn't tell you the truth about why I did it before. That is the reason why I lied about it. Sorry. I should have told you the truth before. I should told you that before. It is very hard and difficult for me to explain it. I don't know how to explain it. I am afraid that if I told you it, you wouldn't believe it and nobody would believe it.
You should have a look at User talk:Bowei Huang again. I have also talked to User:CambridgeBayWeather about this.
Hi. :) Any chance you could help out with a note at the Malaysian Wikipedia? We have a current contributor copyright investigation (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Sisiluncai) on a contributor who works in both. I find that their article ms:Sri Menanti seems to have been created by copying content from [blocked link], [12] and [blocked link]. Evidently, according to ms:Wikipedia:Hak_cipta, proper protocol there means mentioning it on the talk page. I guess they don't have the copyright investigation processes we do (although this is based on google translate, so there could be a Big Clue missing :D). Given that any note I leave would have to go through google translate itself, can you possibly help? --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look at this later Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing you are a Reference Desk regular who usually tries to uphold standards on the desks, I was very surprised to see your recent post attacking me at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Is there any realistic danger to Europe from Icelandic Volcanos? I understand that you disagree with me, but I would have expected you to express your disagreement in a more objective and mature way. Your agressive and personalised tone offended me, is inappropriate for the Reference Desks (or, indeed, anywhere else on Wikipedia,) and sets a very poor example for other RD users. I politely invite you to reconsider your remarks. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the parts that refer to you personally and toned it down slightly in parts. I admit I probably went too fat, but I don't feel my comment was that bad and addressing someone directly is not uncommon on the RD. Most of my comment wasn't referring to you (and the first one was intended as a joke more then anything) and note that until Zain Ebrahim (which came after my reply), no one was really supporting your statements so I was indeed only responding to your points (and when it comes to Zain Ebrahim's statements, while I still partially disagree with them I don't consider them that similar to yours). My comment may still seem aggressive to you, on the other hand, so did yours (the second one in particular) to me. As I mentioned in my modification, I have a history of disliking what I regard as overly simplistic, missing the point or just plain wrong statements and no qualms about clearly pointing it out when I see such statements (even when they are an aside to a main point) as I feel they're detrimental to any discussion. As an interesting aside, I agree with you some/many people are exaggerating the impact (although as a caveat empor, we still don't know how long these problems will last), but I feel you were doing the opposite in apparently suggesting there would generally be no net impact. Note as I've now emphasised I wasn't intended to and don't feel I ever suggested the impact would be massive, simply that no net impact is unlikely and also overly simplistic, even for plenty of the examples you mentioned and even if the actual impact is rather small. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing the personal attacks. I don't believe I said there would generally be no net impact - I said that the specific scenario of cancelling a conference or a sporting event has no net economic impact. My general point was that there is likely to be minimal overall impact on our national economy here in the UK. But at the same time I do not want to disregard the significant effects of the disruption on individuals (which was the very first point that I made). Gandalf61 (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As may be obvious, I don't agree any of my comments can be in any way construed as personal attacks even if they were unhelpful or unnecessary for the discussion. I strongly abide by WP:NPA to the best of my abilities and although I've perhaps crossed the line on occasion, I don't feel this is one of those occasions. (To be honest, when I first noticed you'd made a comment before I read anything, I thought you were complaining about my comment being too long, rambling and/or soapboxy, personal attacks didn't even cross my mind.)
In more general terms, I guess I misinterpreted your statement but re-reading it, I still interpret it the same way and of course regardless, I also disagree that will be no net impact from cancelling conferences and sporting events, even if people overestimate the impact as I think made clear in that discussion.
In terms of the disruption, I admit I initially missed that point (saw it when I added the orchid comment) but I also feel that doesn't really address the main issue since it primary concerned the people who's flights are disrupted. The people who lose their jobs, the farmers who go hungry because they can't sell their produce, the hoteliers who's businesses may go bankrupt, they're the ones your comment seemed to ignore, which is why I vigiriously pointed it out (note plenty of these people will be from outside of Europe).
I agree the overall effect may be minimal, even neglible, but don't think that means the same thing as no net impact which I don't believe is likely to be the case (there will be some impact, even if it's just a blip on the radar). Note the ref which I later found which came closest to supporting what seems to me to be your POV, is [13] and even that doesn't suggest there's definitely going to be no net impact, for example "possibly mitigating the negative impact on hotels and restaurants", key word being possibly or 'being broadly neutral' (which leaves room for some neglible impact rather then absolutely no net impact).
Perhaps the key point is I find it hard to believe there will be absolute no lost opportunity cost (and whatever other terms economists use) and a 100%/perfect balance between loss and gain from cancelled conferences or sporting events which is needed for no net impact. While some will gain and some will lose and the money doesn't completely disappear (and people tend to overestimate the loss and underestimate or even forget about the gain), ultimately it's likely to have an overall negative effect even if it's tiny. (As I also pointed out even if the balance comes out in the positive, that's not going to be no net.) So I stick by my point. Neglible/minimal impact? Perhaps. No net impact? Unlikely, even for individual things like conferences.
And the longer this continues, the more likely this will have some measurable/non-negliable impact. Already it may be enough to have some small impact on several developing countries (I appreciate you are from the UK, but I have no real reason to prioritise the UK and the discussion didn't seem to be solely concerning the UK), particularly since importers may be jittery about the risks (this may be partially made up by exporters from other countries who used to get stuff from Europe but probably not completely, i.e. not no net impact).
Anyway while you're welcome to make further comments I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on both this and the personal attacks since I don't really plan to discuss this further (unless you really feel it necessary to seek outside intervention)
Hi, you are receiving this message because you are currently in WikiProject Malaysia's member list. The project is currently undergoing revamping and we would like to find out who the current active members are. If you still would like to remain in the project(we hope you do!), please add your name to the list here. Also, we are collecting ideas as to the direction of this project and we would love to hear your suggestions and feedback. Please visit this page to leave your comments. Thank you and happy editing! On behalf of the WikiProject Malaysia, BejinhanTalk 12:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to comment in this AN/I thread since you have had interaction with NCDane regarding the same issue before. Nsk92 (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question I asked in the science desk was not the same question as the one I asked in the miscellaneous desk. The question I asked in the science desk was about whether or not Al Gore had heard about Bjørn Lomborg, Penn & Teller, The Skeptical Environmentalist, and Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. The question I asked in the miscellaneous desk was about whether or not Bjørn Lomborg and Penn & Teller had heard about An Inconvenient Truth and what they thought about it. Can you please let me ask that question in the reference desk again?
I apologise then. I do think it would have been best to just ask in the same question as they are fairly related (for example as one of the references to your other question demonstrated Bjørn Lomborg challenged Al Gore directly therefore they must both be aware of each other to some extent). However I have added your question back at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Al Gore's awareness of various people and their work. By OT I mean your question is off topic as it doesn't concern science but someone's awareness of other people and their work. Nil Einne (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to thank you for your response on this topic, which I didn't see at the time. I always forget to re-check old topics, but I went to search for it today and saw your response, so...thanks! Vimescarrot (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Richard Keyes, but I am his son. I'm actually somewhat embarrassed to find that according to Wikipedia policy WP:COI on conflict of interest, I have technically violated that policy. I did not knowingly violate the policy, and even though I did attempt to read everything I could on proper policy and procedure, I was not aware of my conflict. The spirit of my article was not an attempt to commercially promote Richard Keyes, but with his recent granting of Professor Emeritus status, was an attempt to add the information about his life and work to the greater common knowledge base that is Wikipedia. After reviewing the article, I believe that the information provided was done so with a neutral point of view, and that I was able to identify and minimize any bias that I may have. I now humbly and honestly request the help of the Wikipedia community in my attempt to make this a better article and to make sure it conforms to the Wikipedia standards. I know now that in the future, I will have to be very careful to limit any editing I do to this article, do to my COI, and limit myself to non-controversial edits. I thank you for making me aware of my COI, and have also added this information to the talk page of the article. Jevid (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I emailed the declaration of consent for Wikipedia to use the images contained in the Richard Keyes article to the OTRS] team, which you noted were missing. Jevid (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nil Einne, don't know about your check-schedule, but you've got mail. And to let you know, I've struck material at RD/S#Lonely, which material revolves around your posts there. De-dramahz and all that. Regards! Franamax (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I've removed the offending comments altogether. Making blatant personal attacks is unacceptable anywhere on the project. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nil Einne. I’ve noticed you do this regularly, so maybe you're not aware of the difference between 'then' and 'than'.
In sentences that compare one thing with another using the comparative of an adjective, the word we need is than, not 'then'. For example, in the Portland, Oregon discussion, you wrote: " … it's better then the US …", and "… he's no worse then a number of other leaders …". In both cases, the word should have been than.
Hey, thanks for sticking up for me there. The Youtube is full of s*** thread (I just renamed it) is further pointers to me that the reference desk appears to be some kind of chat page about any issue desired, not sure it is following its mandated usage but we live and learn. Best. Off2riorob (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still on Ref Desk, but unrelated to Off2riorobs post, I replied to your Sept. 13 comment on the Science Desk re. the Sinclair MTV-1 CRT here. Or directly to internal pics of the Sinclair MTV1 here. - 220.101talk\Contribs 01:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, re this question I can't, so far, find anything in the 'standard' mentioning colours, except for the power supply wiring. This is the link I found "ATX Specification Version 2.2, Feb. 2004"(PDF). at formfactors.org. Regards, - 220.101talk\Contribs 11:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I loved it :-). I'm such a procrastinator. Thanks for changing it. Good thing I tend to overlink, and good thing there are less lazy people who click on the links. Have a Happy Friday! ---Sluzzelintalk 20:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of trying to clarify your comment to Jon here. Hope that was right; just thought I'd mention it. Cheers, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the way Wikipedia works. For some reason you feel free to enforce Wikpedia policy on others when you seem to protect that which you have created yourself, contradicting your own attitude towards the work of others. I have already decided to retire because I am sick of this attitude (there is no possibility for assuming good faith here, this is obviously malignant). I will bring this to the attention your fellow administrators. --JHvW (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to prod the Whitworths article for deletion if that is what you consider to be correct, but please don't vandalise it. Kind RegardsTeapotgeorgeTalk 22:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You have been notified.
I was not attempting to vandalise it, only to Wikify it. The discussion for deletion is something the community will have to decide upon. As I have already decided to retire I will not fight this battle, just not worth it. The only thing I can do is follow procedure and bring this to the attention of the administrators. Perhaps they will protect you, perhaps not. In the end it is Wikipedia that suffers, this sort of behaviour does not work toward maintaining or improving Wikipedia. Therefore contravening a core policy. --JHvW (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry how does calling something blatant advertising [14] in the article count as wikifying? You may want to see WP:POINT and WP:RS and WP:Citing sources none of which suggest what you did is in any way acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apolgies but I am sorry that I do not agree. You seem to be focussing on a part of the discussion that is out of context. But as you have put this question to me, I will accept the responsibility of my actions and leave Wikipedia, as you seem to feel that most of my actions are in contravention of Wikipedia policy as stated. I will however not leave before giving you my side of events (which I feel would have been the fair and decent thing to ask in the first place). Obviously I do not fit in this community anymore, so my decision will probably be welcomed as a win-win situation for everybody.
Now my side of events:
On the 12th of october I published a new article on Jefferson Wood. Within 30 minutes a "conflict of interest tag" was placed on the article. On the discussion page I asked why this tag had been placed (as I believe is ususal in these sort of discussions). But I received no answer. I then added my reasons leading up to and the reason for this article.
The user who put the tag on the article then started editing (or Wikifying) the article (by this users claim, only following procedure). I answered the questions. More edits followed, I answered those questions. An administrator pointed out that the images I had uploaded could not all be allowed in as fair use, stating that it was indeed a difficult debate and gave me advise as what to do. This administrator also removed the Conflict of Interest tag. I followed the advice of the administrator, removing the gallery and moving the pictures to a section which I felt was appropriate. On my screen the references merged with the left hand picture so I added some line breaks and studied HTML to see if there was a procedure to prevent this. More edits ensued, removing the line breaks (also those in the pictures) but also the section which I had remarked out, awaiting the result of the discussion on the uploaded pictures (which was to have concluded on October 22nd).
The user that put up the COI tag did not answer my questions on the discussion page but edited the article and claimed this was fair under current procedure.
My father is a professional military man. I have been brought up to lead by example. So I decided I was obviously doing something wrong, so I decided to look at an article this user had made, because, in my opinion it would be an example of the procedure to follow.
The article I looked at was the Whitworths article. Now this is basically one line with a picture. I believe in Wikipedia terms this is called a stub. As this stub concerns a company that produces food products I felt that it was fair that such a stub tag was placed on the page.
I also had concernes about what was stated. I will confine myself to the main parts. It is stated in the article that the company had obtained a Royal Warrant. In my opinion this is a term that may be familiar to those living in England (or maybe the British Isles) but as this is not the American Wikipedia or the Wikipedia Britannica, I felt that placing a Wikilink to that specific article was perfectly reasonable.
The queen mother is referred to as Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. This could also be a source of confusion. Her daughter was to become Queen Elizabeth the Second, naming her Queen Elizabeth could mean that those referencing Wikipedia would think that she was Queen Elizabeth the First. Those who are familiar with the British Monarchy will explain that Queen Elizabeth the first is a different queen. The late Queen mother was usually referred to as the Queen or the Queen Consort, when her husband was King. When her daughter became queen, she was generally known as the Queen Mother or more affectionally "The Queen Mum". Changing that part of the article to Queen Mother is in my opinion legitimate. Although I am quite sure that most people will know Queen Elabeth the Second, Wikifying her name is a normal part of Wikipedia procedure. The citation for the Royal Warrant applies to Queen Elizabeth the Second and not the Queen Mother, putting up a citation flag is also normal procedure.
The stub states that the company was founded as Whitworths Brothers. Now there is another comapny in the UK called Whitworths Brothers producing bakery products. In my opinion it is correct to add a section called Ambiguity, to state that there could be possible confusion, adding a link to the website of Whitworths Brothers Ltd.
The provided links were not Wikified. So I did this. Perhaps stating that it was blatant advertising may have been a little strong, but stating that it is information found on the Company website is, in my opinion, perfectly acceptable.
Then there is the picture. The picture displays the company logo. I will assume good faith and accept that it is actually outside the head office. But the picture shows the company logo and very little else, in my opinion either incorrect use of the logo (an administrator familiar with the fair use of company logo's will explain this) or advertising for the company. Rather than removing the picture or remarking it out (awaiting opinion) I reduced it somewhat. This would be in keeping with Wikipedia policy.
Now we could have a public discussion about this, on the users page or on the discussion page of the article. That would be normal procedure, I may have, after all, made mistakes. The user however has already refused to answer questions before and feels that it is entirely within their rights to Wikify other articles rather than asking or answering questions.
When I asked the user wether this was the way to go about Wikifying an article I was accused of being a vandal and the edits were reverted. Now because all this happened rather quickly it is my opinion that the user may have acted in haste and I made the edits again (rather a waste of my time, but I was desperate to learn). The edits were again reverted, I was again accused of vandalism and threatend with edit blocking. As I am aware of the three revertions rule, I thought it proper to bring this to the attention of the administrators rather than starting a revertion "war".
After this happenend this user has volunteered the following facts:
This user agrees that I have followed proper procedure in the article on Jefferson Wood.
This user states that the COI tag was maybe put in the article a little hastily (but did not feel it should be removed, even when two questions were asked about this), the user felt entitled, rather than answering the legitimate questions, to edit the article.
The reasons the user has given for the COI tag are:
JW looks a lot like JHvW
This user did not like the tone of the article
Normal procedure would have been to have a civil discussion about this or just remove the COI tag, but another user had to do this after prompting.
When I perfectly reasonably (this is a civil way of saying that I am perfectly within my rights and Wikipedia policy) Wikified an article, this user resorts to accusation and threats rather than having a civil discussion.
In summary I have tried to produce an article according to current norms in Wikipedia, therefore satisfying the core principle of Wikipedia namely maintaining or improving Wikipedia.
Labelling the Whitworths article a stub and Wikifying the text is also within the current norms of Wikipedia. Maybe some of edits do not satisfy the opinions of others. Normal procedure would be to discuss this on the discussion page in a civil manner or reverting it to a more suitable text. The user in question has preffered to revert the edits and call me a vandal and make threats, rather than trying to solve this in a civil manner.
I did not remove one fact. It has also been suggested that I should PROD the article or bring it up for an AfD. It should be obvious that I do not want the article removed but also that it does not conform to current Wikipedia standards. In my opinion all I have done is stand up for myself and ask questions about procedure.
The article was started in February. Very little has happened since then. The user has added two links to the company website. This user is well aware of the history of this company but prefers to edit the articles of others rather than expanding a stub. The user has every right to make that decision. Placing a stub tag will maybe encourage others to expand the article to conform it to Wikipedia standards. I made a start but that was obviously vandalism.
My conclusion at this point is that this users feels entitled to be judge, jury and executioner of the work of others and being extremely protective of this user's own work, even resorting to accusations and threats without first trying to solve this in a civil manner.
In my opinion I have tried to show good faith, be civil, and behave according to etiquette. Also I have tried to follow procedure and policy. In return I have been accused of being a vandal and have been threatend with edit blocking.
Obviously Wikipedia feels that I am in the wrong and this user is perfectly correct. Which leads me to conclude that I do not understand the rules of Wikipedia and I will do the honourable thing and leave. After seven years Wikipedia will lose a contributor, which up to now has been of good standing. So I will leave you with a question, why did I put this message up?
Good luck with the project. --JHvW (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't bother to read your long message in entirety. Frankly I don't really care about your disputes or history. And I never talked about most of your edits, I was only ever talking about one edit. However there's no way you can claim that your specific edit in question wikifying [15]. The only thing you did there is label 3 sources (one of which appears to be a BBC news article, i.e. a reliable secondary source) as 'blatant advertising' and add some hidden comments, not anything remotely related to 'wikifying'. You didn't even label the article a stub as you allege nor add any wikilink for royal warrant nor do anything with the Queen part (you may have done so later, along with the same changes as your first edit but it is irrelevant as we are discussing your first edit and after you repeated your unacceptable actions in your second edit it's understandable if any possible beneficial edits you may have made in the second edit were reverted along with your completely unacceptable edits, you cannot make clearly unacceptable changes along with some okay ones and expect people to try and pick the good edits from the completely unacceptable edits which were already reverted once). I don't care about your other edits and haven't looked in to them as they are irrelevant I was only ever commenting on one edit which you were defending as 'wikifying'. It is unfortunate you see the need to leave, but if you continue to defend edits of that sort as 'wikifying' then perhaps it's for the best. There's no procedure or policy which justifies that, not even a basic read would suggest so. Wikipedia 'standards' in no way suggest that we should do what you did, if you look I suspect you will find zero articles with anything like what you were attempting to do (labelling 3 sources as blatant advertising and doing nothing else). I have no knowledge of whether Whitworths is notable, if it is not, I'm sure the article will be deleted in time. If you want to propose the article for deletion, there are established ways to do that. If you want to improve the article, you are free to do so, and some of your edits may indeed have merit. But what you did (labelling 3 sources as blatant advertising and doing nothing else) is not justified in any way in policy, is not normal practice, is not wikifying, and is indeed unacceptable (whether you want to call it vandalism or not). For someone who has been here for seven years, you should know that. BTW I am not an administrator. Nil Einne (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is not however with the article itself but with the user that contributed the article. One of my own articles keeps on being edited by this user, arguing it does not conform to Wikipedia standards and changing what does not seem to conform.
You may have had problems with User:Teapotgeorge before. They are none of my concern. Disrupting other articles because of these problems is unacceptable and all the evidence suggests this is what you were doing. BTW it is not true your comments were remarked out. The comments at the top may have been, but the labelling of 3 sources were not. Putting comments at the top of the article is not the proper way to discuss problems with an article in any case, either leave them on the talk page or approach Teaportgeorge with them. However this in itself wouldn't have been something I personally would have cared about. (Leaving comments at the top of articles also does not count as wikifying BTW.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I have not had problems with this user before. You feel that what I have done is not justified or acceptable and that what I claim is not true, which means that you have not read the edit log. But it does not really matter, I think the case is clear, so after finishing this message I will blank my pages and put up a {{db-user}} tag, to make sure everything is removed. But I would like you to think this over:
Good behaviour:
Putting a COI tag on an article based on similarity of initials and the fact that you do not like the tone of an article
Refusing to discuss or remove the tag, yet making edits in the article leading to the removal of parts that should not have been removed.
Reverting edits because you do not like it and call the user a "vandal" rather than having a civil disussion.
Placing Wikilinks in an article, on items that could lead to confusion
Adding a subsection to an article, to prevent possible confusion.
Everything however is focussed on an unfortunate choice of words. But you have made it clear: you do not care. So the matter is clear. This is the way Wikipedia wants to work. I want no part of it. Goodbye. --JHvW (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get this [16] - could you restrict your responses to stuff that contains an answer, or not respond. Thanks.94.72.205.11 (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are saying - why is it not right to assume the buyer would sue or start criminal proceedings against them?94.72.205.11 (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying you can get an idea of the culture there by what caused the problem in the first place. This wasn't an isolated thing but quite a number of companies all producing the same crap from an incomplete stolen formula. It's also not likely the buyers were completely blind as to what's going on. (Super cheap capacitors don't suddenly appear from no where and I would expect many had their own quality control testing the stuff too, obviously not enough to pick up the flaws.) They obviously didn't expect capacitor plague but big companies have a fair idea of what they're getting in to (if they didn't they wouldn't be big companies). It's a risk they choose to take...
In this particular case it came out badly for them. (Often it does not.) There may be some form of compensation but some of the companies undoutedly would have disappeared. There were likely some lawsuits involved as well. But ultimately the people who run the companies clearly didn't think much of using a stolen formula which they apparently didn't understand well enough to know was incomplete and flawed. Clearly they didn't consider the risks, say of being sued say by the people who designed that formula, high enough to outweigh the likely advantage they would gain from producing capacitors from the stolen formula. So it's not that surprising that the buyers themselves may not gain that much from whatever lawsuits did occur. In other words, ultimately I think it's quite likely the buyers bore the brunt of the cost. (Which as I've said, they must have anticipated when they went in.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The companies affected were at least two steps up in the supply chain, I'd also assume that the motherboard manufacturers wouldn't have bought components they new were going to fail on mass within a few months. That aside I was asking for factual answers, not your opinion. Can you please refrain from answering if you have nothing to offer but your own opinion.94.72.205.11 (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
user:TreasuryTag felt that one of your contributions on the reference desk was inappropriate, and has removed it [17]. It is being discussed on the Reference Desk Talk Page, if you'd like to comment. Buddy431 (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer to my question concerning how certain cable operations like MSNBC work. I've been doing more research, but if you have anything else you want to add, you can do it here. Willminator (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nil Einne. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Message added 18:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks for all your help about Catherine Thompson, and rationale of posts about "Cathy"[edit]
Thanks for helping me about what to do about finding more on Catherine Thompson, as sune as my connection's security is fixed, i'll try some of that stuff. The reason i did all those posts on the ref desk and other places in the article, is because like i mention on the talk page for the ref desk, i have gotten messages that indirectly state that the author of the message doesn't think that i'm right, or at least that's part of what i understand. I understand she is not totaly notable, but she does deserve mention. Voice acting isn't exactly a piece of cake, i would know. You have to get your lines right, make your voice change to what the director wants, which is not always easy and takes some practice, etc. etc. Anyway, thanks for helping me, you are a good friend. I've coppied this message to the others who have helped me with Catherine Thompson and her work on Biz Kid$. N.I.M. (talk), the biz kid, 05:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Nil. You used to be active regarding the Anal sex article, and have been active with other sexual topics on Wikipedia. Because of this, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind weighing in on the above linked discussion. We need a third opinion, and you seem like a good choice for the matter. I believe I have fixed the problem, and another voice on the issue would be much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors[edit]
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I noticed your response on the RD. Can you code and compile c++ projects on Linux? How much of an 31337 Unix hacker are you? Did you understand the outline of the requirements? (and the fact that many implementation details are left to you)? Do you think you could do it, in a Contest setting, in 20 minutes, if you already had the environment including source control set up? How long would it take you to do it? If you got, in advance ________ from me, you would do it and deliver by Monday. _________ is how much money. Thanks 109.128.192.218 (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are similarities between User:Tomjohnson357 and banned User:Kj650. I have lodged a report about sockpuppetry involving these two User names. See HERE. Dolphin(t) 02:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Girloveswaffles' comments on Talk:Spliced (TV series) suggest that they want the info there and will do anything to keep it there. I need someone to step in and set them straight so that I don't have to keep playing whack-a-mole on the article. So far, I'm getting nothing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nil that is so magnificently considerate that I don't know what to say. I just forgot how the ensmalling worked. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this comment made me curious about what kind of "stuff" you have seen in the Signpost that you found objectionable. Do you have a few links? Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have everyones attention, I would like to make a point about respect. The procedure here at Wikipedia is to destroy and justify. Not a single person asks the author first, or tries to reach a consensus about a large change first, prior to undoing a lot of work. Do you people really understand the impact that this has on an author or someone who is trying to help clean up Wikipedia. You slap someone in the face, and then expect them to say thanks. SchuminWeb and Themeparkgc know that I posted my purpose and scope on my user page first, and they could have contacted me at any time about the changes that I made. I also made it clear that what they are doing is arbitrary and that the rules are not being applied evenly, especially in summer camp and amusement park articles. All of these articles are ads, and have no educational value whatsoever. Amusement park articles, like Adventureland_(Iowa), have surplus photos that should be deleted exactly as the Public Domain photos were deleted at Belvoir Terrace. Amusement park ride descriptions should be deleted exactly as the activities were deleted at Belvoir Terrace. This is absolute proof that SchuminWeb is targeting me, and vandalizing my work. The owners of Belvoir Terrace also contributed to the Wiki article, and SchuminWeb has vandalized their work as well. Make no mistake, Themeparkg will fight to the death to prevent any cleanup of amusement park articles from happening, since this is his hobby. A strict application of the rules would wipe out all amusement park, waterpark and summer camp articles, as they are nothing more than promotional ads. And they duplicate what is on the park website. And the photos are not educational. So, until you people get your act together, and show some respect for others, Wikipedia is not worth my time. Summer Vacation (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK no public domain photos were deleted from Belvoir Terrace. Images of dubious copyright status were deleted. If you are able to get permission directly from the copyright holders to release the images under a free license, then it should be know problem getting them to email that permission directly to wikipedia, as you are asked to do when uploading photos. Also your claims appear inconsistent as you are now saying these photos are in the public domain but you earlier claimed they were released under a free license by the copyright holder (after it was pointed out your claim they were your own work wasn't true). By and large we don't delete surplus images except in some special cases, we may simply remove them from articles. However at all wikimedia projects, we take copyrights very seriously and generally are therefore not able to trust someone's word that they got permission of the copyright holder. In this particular case given your conflicting claims, I would also be concerned that it is uncertain precisely what license the copyright holder agreed to release their content under or whether they simply agreed to allow the content to be used on wikipedia but did not agree to release them under a free license (which would allow anyone to use them for any purpose including criticism and modifying them in any way they please; all without worrying about copyright issues). From experience I think many contributors can attest that many copyright holders while fine with allowing our use of their images are often far less willing to release them under a free license. And when they do, they usually have no problem with e-mailing us directly to give permission and fully understand our need to be certain we really have their permission. Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually know what the hell you are talking about. Did I, or did I not, say that the owners of the summer camp edited the wiki article? They know that the photo has to be public domain to be on Wikipedia. Your subtle way of calling someone a liar, and your condescending attitude, and your failure to look at the history of the article to see who added input to the article, and your refusal to address the primary issue of vandalism by SchuminWeb, proves my point. The editors and administrators are all about destroy and justify. Respect for others is totally missing, which is why I take issue with the procedures at Wikipedia personal. BTW CC3.0 is the most restrictive, and it is what I used for Belvoir Terrace "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs CC BY-NC-ND This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, only allowing others to download your works and share them with others as long as they credit you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially."CC3.0Summer Vacation (talk)
Responded on your talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether something is a revert or not cannot be affected by subsequent alleged poisoning of the well, IMHO. Moreover, as with any !vote at Wikipedia, a bare opinion devoid of any rationale is entitled to zero weight, IMHO. These are merely my opinions, but I happen to like them a lot. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't get the relevance since no one said the alleged poisoning of the well had any affect on whether something was a revert. Nor was there any suggestion of voting... Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi fellow editor, I'm sorry I had to correct this as the children in the photos were not wearing turbans but Patkas. Turban is formal head wear, wheras Patka is informal. A Patka is like a headscarf, wheras a turban is actually tied and is more elaborate. Thanks --SH 13:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nil Einne. I just wanted to thank you for your reply to my questions about the pic on the main page yesterday. It helped me understand what was going on. I didn't see it until just now and, since the item was stale there, I came here to post my thanks. thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please review Ronn Torossian page - Appreciate your commentary on forum. He is relevant for owning a PR agency not for Israel work. Why isnt that the bulk of the article ? He was semi finalist for 2010 Ernst & Young Award and none of the positive PR content is profiled there.
Profiles in every major magazine and none mention Israel: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronn_Torossian&oldid=420753830
and lastly User Ravapapa on his user page outs Torossian and calls him a sockpuppet by showing his picture. Please assist.
greenbay1313 (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier Torossian pages were accurate and had many many debates before a politically motivated user Ravpapa made sweeping changes without reason. Your assistance is appreciated to show Wikipedia isnt a private club. No one intends to mess up the system simply to have accuracy reflected. How it is now isnt accurate nor reflective of Wiki. greenbay1313 (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From reviewing your work you are a very fair editor can you review please ?
1: Where is statement Torossian is an active supporter of Israel - They appear to be clients, so lead should be removed ?
2: The Forward states something different regarding Our Jerusalem than does the other source on page jerusalem Post to which should be changed:
http://www.jpost.com/Features/InTheSpotlight/Article.aspx?id=150936
During what would turn out to be a two-year stint in this country, Torossian was one of three founders - together with fellow Betar alumni and peers, today Likud MK Danny Danon and Kadima MK Yoel Hasson - of Yerushalayim Shelanu (Jerusalem Is Ours), a secular organization promoting the right of Jews to live anywhere they choose in the city of Jerusalem.
3: Rabbi Morris Allen, who heads an organization that exposed fraud in one of 5WPR's clients, called the firm's tactics in defending the client "outrageous, to say the least."[9] If Allen speaks about firm, why on Torossian's personal page ?
4: Torossian is active in supporting pro-Israeli causes, especially those associated with the Israeli right wing. ( THEY ARE CLIENTS - ANY SOURCES SAY OTHERWISE ?)& same goes with christian supporters of Israel - These are clients.
Hi Nil Einne/Archive 2. The Wikipedia Schools Project has set up a dedicated help and feedback page at WP:WPSCH/H. This is for elementary/primary, middle, and high schools (often called college in the UK). It is not for universities. If you regularly give advice to users, you might wish to send enquirers there - we are quick to respond. However, WT:WPSCH still remains the place for general discussion about the management and policy of school articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i was told by a the mother of a serbian family that the three finger salute respresents a gesture remembering the days of when the serbian people were raided by the muslim nations and their children taken from them to be trained in the muslim armies and to be forced to return and fight against their own people so to prevent this their parents would cut of those particular three digits to prevent thenm from being forceably removed from then so the salute was a mark of defiance to show that they remembered those days and that they got to adulthood still having those three fingers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.30.108 (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello N. I just wanted to say thanks for you post at my thread at AN/I. It cleared up my final question. Not being aware of those I was only looking at the same page that Nightscream had linked to. I didn't want to clutter up my thread there so I came here. If you aren't okay with that please feel free to move this message there. Thanks again for you time. MarnetteD | Talk 19:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, glad it helped Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much indeed for your query about 'Sexus Politicus' on the Banon Talk page.
I'm afraid I was indeed a little careless about not checking the sources carefully enough and I've edited accordingly as well as citing Henry Samuel's 4 July Daily Telegraph piece which explicitly names Sexus Politicus as referring to the case. Let me know on the Banon Talk page, or my Talk page, if you have any further concerns.
Most grateful. Thank you so much. FightingMac (talk) 04:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"This is clearly not supported by policy as WP:Engvar and other policies clearly only require consistency within an article, not between articles."
You've made this point in at least two places, so I thought I'd address it on your talk page rather than at each place you made it. I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. The consistency that's relevant here is that discussed at WP:TITLE, which states, "Consistency – titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles." That is, with respect to article titles (not content), we seek consistency among similar articles (like names of countries, in this case). This is the whole basis for the panoply of naming conventions that exist to provide guidance regarding consistent naming of similar articles. Indeed, it's one of the reasons we have WP:TITLE - so articles are titled consistently in Wikipedia. By the way, strong familiarity with WP:TITLE is very helpful to anyone who gets involved in RM discussions.
If you could strike, retract or correct your statements to the contrary, that would be appreciated. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to correct as you're wrong. We're not discussing a 'pattern' here (like the pattern of 'city name, state name' for most US cities or the pattern of 'country name and the United Nations') but different equally valid names for the same thing where issues like Engvar come in to play. Now arguably related articles like Outline of Côte d'Ivoire could be considered a pattern but even then other considerations mean it's not always clear cut. For example should it be Côte d'Ivoire and the United Nations or Ivory Coast and the United Nations, there are clearly considerations here that only somewhat apply to the main article. The policy you linked to does of course acknowledge that "Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles". And there are clearly plenty of cases when we screw a pattern, an obvious engvar example would be Bronze (color) and Orange (colour).
In any case that only applies to titles which wasn't my biggest concern nor the point I was making. My point BTW in case you still don't get it was we don't have to follow the title of the article when using it in other articles. To use an example, the name of a country in Member states of the United Nations does not have to follow the title of the article, in fact when the name the UN uses is different from that of the article, it's questionable if it should. And yes this is an important thing because when Myanmar was renamed to Burma some people seemed to want to change every single occurence of the name Myanmar thoroughout wikipedia. BTW the move from Myanmar to Burma arguably lacked consensus as I pointed out not long after the move (although wasn't specifically disputed as an improper move by anyone AFAIK); was I believe probably the right thing not because it was the better name but because it was the original name of the article and the way it got to Myanmar in the first place was somewhat questionable so ultimately following first contributors preference was the only real choice.
Sorry but I'll make the point back to you that understanding in it's entirety policy and how it is applied (including the interactions between policies), rather just understanding the meaning of a few keywords is an important part of WP:RM. There is no requirement for consistency between articles. There may be some cases where consistency is preferred but in no case does it mean we completely ignore other considerations, and in some cases consistency between a name in one article and either the title or the name in another article has little bearing.
I've never been one for long back and forth discussions, often preferring to have my long say and then move on (one of the reasons being because I say so much it takes too much time for back and forths). So this will probably be my final comment although you're of course welcome to reply.
Anyway I just came across United Nations Office in East Timor which looks to me like it was moved without discussion in this interest of consistency. So now refers to an organisation under a name it probably never used and was rarely if ever referred to, and includes a flag that was likely never used. In fact in this interest of consistency, the person who made the move didn't even change all instances in the article so now we have an inconsistent article which uses the names randomly and without explaination. But at least by preserving the other usage our readers aren't left scratching their heads wondering where the acronym came from. (Sadly from my experience this sort of thing where people are so worried about consistency they change one instance or the article title but leave the other instances alone introducing intra-article consistency isn't uncommon. Of course there are also those who do 'search and replace' and thereby change references in quotations or sources to...)
So yes, there is a reason why I'm so concerned about attempts at being consistent when it's not supported by written policy and makes little sense. And although as said titles weren't the the thrust of my argument, it does matter there to.
My computer hung while composing my reply to that thread on the RD. Fortunately since I was using Firefox (although I had taken a photo) my message was mostly still there when I restarted. As I found out before, when this happens it means I actually only submit the thread I was composing my reply under (I think because Firefox reloads the editing window in such a way that it is editing the whole page and then replaces the text with what was saved). Unfortunately I forgot about that when submitting and because I was busy didn't look much at my reply, until I came back 2-4 hours later and noticed the active window was showing the humanities desk with only that thread. By that time it had been fixed by you (well I can't remember if I even bothered to check) so I left it be.
Hello, Nil Einne. You have new messages at Talk:2011_Battle_of_Tripoli. Message added 21:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, thanks for your refdesk reply, I accidentally replied in the archives, so if you'd like you can reply either there or here. I'm confused about quite a number of concepts with regards to HTPC setup... 62.255.129.19 (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a reply about the controversy surrounding the Tucker Smith entry. Who ever did the edits claiming Smith is alive and is a single child, etc, etc was obviously a liar with nothing to do but to be an nuisance by besmirching the memory of the deceased. Madonnarama (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could be useful at the WQA? We not always see eye to eye, but an opinion is an opinion. --CerejotaIf you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 00:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Nil Einne, I saw your suggestion to merge the RfC's. Please feel free to do so. I also think it would be a good idea. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the title. However, I do not feel comfortable removing the RfC tag for one of them, although I did modify my notice. If you could remove the tag, that would be great! I hope you have a nice day. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent caution to DeeperQA about asking polemical 'questions' on the Reference Desk seems to have gone unheeded ([18], [19]). You suggested at [[User talk:DeeperQA#Your behaviour on the RD|]] that he had been blocked several times before, but I can't find any record of any blocks in the block log. Were those blocks under a different username, or are the servers acting up right now and not giving me the right information, or did you misremember? In any case, I would certainly endorse removal of the latest debate-starter and possibly a block (depending on his history there). Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain DeeperQA is another sock of a multiple times blocked user User:Inning aka User:Taxa aka User:Julie Dancer who's gone under many different identities besides that, and been bothering the RD with similar behaviour in the past (just 2 discussions Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 63#User:Taxa] & Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 82). (Julie Dancer is commonly listed as the main account but they actually first came to the RD and WP in 2006 other a different username which links to their real life identity.) There is a fair amount of behavioural evidence for this but fortunately it looks like I don't need to waste my time finding the stuff I remember, since I just found out they outed themselves from the beginning. Before Inning was blocked but after they started to get in to trouble, Inning posted [20] repeated by DeeperQA a day later [21].
(FYI, I've had a feeling about DeeperQA for a while but didn't make the link until about 4 weeks ago when I noticed something in their userpage which lead me to believe I knew who they were. The more I read the more clear it became clear who they were. And once it became clear I wasn't the only one who felt a lot of their comments were unwelcome, I posted the warning, certain enough in my belief of who they were I didn't bother to link to their identity. However looking back at some of the previous discussions, it seems I forgot quite how many identities they've had as well as how recent their last one was, so probably should have suggested a block as soon as I realised who they were. I guess we shouldn't be surprised by their behaviour on the RD considering [22] was their second question under the new identity.)
As said, there is further behaviour evidence if you feel it's needed.
I knew there had to be some reason I was watching Inning and its socks. Kudos for finding the smoking gun. So, is he blocked yet? :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification, looks like someone already reverted. A quick glance thru the edit history of the user suggests it was probably an accident somehow as they seem to be an infrequent albeit established editor with no obvious signs of problems, and don't visit the RD much anyway but I'll check. Nil Einne (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh see this already happened, was an accident. I understand your concern although as others mentioned it's usually best to assume those sort of things are accidents or simply ask an editor what happened, particularly when they are carried out by editors with no obvious signs of problems. In fact there are at least two examples of accidents on my part on my talk page, both [23] (see #Ref desk) and [24] (see #Edit to TS's comment) were accidents on my part. Of these, I would say #Ref desk was a better way to approach me although I didn't mind a great deal either way as ultimately I did screw up. But in the same vein, I can understand how it's not obvious how something happened, as in both examples of accidents on my part. A check confirms you don't have WP:rollback rights so you may not have known it's just a single 'button' (I myself never use my watchlist so sort of forgot it was even in the watchlist). Nil Einne (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This happens sometimes. In fact, I had to retype this because instead of "show preview", I hit "what's this" by mistake and lost my edit. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change browser? With Firefox, I usually don't lose my comments from accidentally browsing away, in fact most of the time even after my browser crashes I don't lose my comments (part of what happened here). I used to lose them a lot with IE6 and I think IE7 (no idea how IE8 or IE9 are). Of course if you are using FF this doesn't help :-P Nil Einne (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar.
This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past.
It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You allege that I am a reincarnation of various past IPs.[edit]
Okay, would you please list all of them that you allege? If there are false positives, I will point out how they are false. If they are true (and you may express why you suspect said IPs are formerly mine, if you wish), then I will admit it.
I've already provided one example. Since you apparently ignored the example and added an unnecessary {{fact}} tag effectively denying it was you (even if you didn't see the example you should still know you did do that) which is a similar thing to last time this was brought up Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 November 17#Please help me clear up this hogwash about adjusting braces at the SAME orthodontist., I'm not going to waste my time on such a fruitless exercise. (BTW, there was something that occurred to me while visiting something from the second discussion,. hHas anyone ever told you bright green is a terrible colour for a blog background colour("colour" was repeated twice too soon.)?) Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those IPs were mine. At the time, I didn't feel comfortable owning up to having the previous IP. This was because I forgot that I already submitted a similar question, and felt foolish upon realizing that I just submitted it twice.
I also felt surprised that someone was able to connect my past IPs to my present one. It wasn't the kind of surprise I would hope for. This is why I felt hesitant to own up to being the reincarnation of these past IPs.
I promised that I would admit it, if those IPs were not false positives, and delivered on said promise.
I am not sure what color to change the background to, but will try harder to decide, and change it anyhow if you archive your older talkpage topics because 188189 is far too many to scroll through. --70.179.174.63 (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Say pardner, was that gratuitous sneer about a being in a coma directed at me, or someone else? Textorus (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was directed at Roger, hence the indenting. Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW in case it's not obvious, the reason is because it seems obvious from their statements and actions that the last president who was in office for 8 years was some sort of creationist (perhaps not a YEC), his last statement on the matter I can find is [25] which is somewhat more nuanced then some may have believed from some of his earlier statements and actions and doesn't really answer the question (probably because he doesn't understand evolution) but seems to indicate he was some sort of a creationist even if he potentially accepted parts of evolution as well. From what I read, his father and the president before his father were also some sort of creationists. Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nil Einne, apologies, but I suspect (from your response at AN/I) that in my rambling, I've created a situation where you misunderstood what I was saying. It would both be rude and wrong of me to state your opinion of Ludwigs2's actions was a mischaracterization (which, from your response, seems to be what you think I was asking). That was most definitely not my intent. I was trying to say we don't want him topic banned because of his opposing opinions - and claiming that was our true motives was a mischaracterization.
Three dozen (stopped counting there) personal attacks (including racism based ones) and using the incorrect forum to enact policy changes (even though experienced enough to know better) to the point of disruption were our reasons. I don't think there's a single one of us who appreciated the personal attacks - nor do I think there's a single one of us who is against him having an opinion on the secular position Wikipedia has enacted in policy, but we also know that a small handful of editors on that talk page cannot simply change policy to make Wikipedia favor religious beliefs, not while a direct and unambiguous statement against such sits in the last paragraph of WP:CENSOR. Hence, for the benefit of doubt (even though it is also spelled out on the top of the talkpage in the disclaimer box) we've pointed out the correct venue (the Policy section of Village Pump). With it clearly pointed out on the top of that page, and being reiterated many times by various editors - after the first few dozen times making the (paraphrased) "honor religious beliefs" argument in the incorrect venue, IMO, becomes disruptive. It is solely actions and attacks (and later multiple end runs around building an RfC, followed by enacting a biased and rejected one) that guided by !vote and the AN/I report I was holding on to.
Hope that explains it - we don't want to silence him because he has opposing views (the mischaracterization). We want him to stop the personal attacks, stop claiming we haven't given him our reasons (he states we haven't (including on Jimbo's page) - far more than he states he disagrees) and (for the policy change aspect) use the correct venue. If you still think my or our motives are suspect, I guess that's fine - nothing I can do about that. Either way, have a wonderful day. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, as I said... tendency to ramble. If I still didn't make sense, sorry. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm not saying you (and other's supporting the topic ban) don't genuinely believe he is disruptive, being tenditious etc. I'm just saying I don't believe he is. As for the POV thing, I'll try to explain this in a different way. What I'm trying to say is that I think on all sides people's POV influences whether they feel he needs to be topic banned or not, even if they try to avoid it. The fact that some have discussed how his POV is in the minority in the topic ban proposal IMO exemplifies this. In other words, I somewhat agree with Griswaldo. To use an example, I find people who bring up WP:NOTCENSORED all the time in discussions (both in Muhammand and elsewhere) on the matter problematic and often not advancing the discussion but that's influenced by my POV. A more specific example, I mentioned how I participated in a long ago discussion on that matter. I believe at the time we had a pictoral depiction of Muhammad in infobox and early on in the article. Some wanted to keep this and in fact argued we weren't using images enough, the German wikipedia's article was advocated as a good example. The argument was made that by putting calligraphy in the infobox and considering what an appropriate number of images was, we are practicing censorship etc. From what I can see, the only people who have advocated this POV recently are not regulars and only left one or 2 messages. However if there was some regular who kept advocating this POV, I think it's less likely for some of those supporting for a topic ban of Ludwigs2 to support for a topic ban of this person for being teditious, disruptive etc and conversely more likely for some opposed to a topic ban for Ludwigs to support a topic ban of this person. However both POVs are IMO equally in the minority and not likely to achieve any consensus any time soon. There's simply no getting around the fact many people are going to find comments which are diametrically opposed to any strong existing POVs more problematic then ones which are closer to their POV or feel the need to respond whenever something was mentioned which they feel is wrong, even if just as an aside (which is partially what leads to something being seen as disruptive, people get in to long heated discussions about stuff which was beside the main point). I admit I haven't commented on the 'personal attacks bit'. One of the reasons is because I haven't lookled in to it that well, as it's the sort of thing that needs careful analysis. But from my limited analysis, while I agree some of Ludwig's comments have been problematic, so have others on all sides. Discussions with strong existing POVs do tend to lead to strong language, trying to assign 'blame' is difficult and I'm not convinced it's severe enough to warrant a detailed analysis. Note that I do agree Ludwigs should reduce his advocacy for the removal of all images, I simply don't believe it's reached a level where a topic ban is needed. Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, much thanks for taking the time to elaborate in such depth. I definitely see your point on a lot of it - and I guess I can talk about no actions or motives but my own anyway. On this particular topic, and various others like it, I don't see an easy solution. I was thinking my proposal to evaluate each image on it relevance to the topic at hand and the article as a whole (as well as the other criteria) might have covered all aspects of the issue, but lately, I'm not even sure of that. I do have one other proposal I am trying to work on (and numerous other angles I am reviewing), but I'm not yet finished with them. The crazy RfC proposal I'm working on will be twice as biased as any other - but that's intentional. My intent is to accurately find point and counterpoint for each argument (for the side of those for image removal, I've already enlisted help of such editors) as two question sections with each question supporting each POV. After all of the two set questions, the final question I had in mind was (grossly paraphrased) "Assuming you think there is an undue amount of images in the article, please propose up to 3 images you would remove (with the first being the one you feel strongest about)". I think it has some sort of bias, so I'm working on the wording of that question.
Anyway, I'm currently going through comments by Griswaldo, Jayen, Mathsci, Resolute and others (as well as my own perspective) to also try to figure out some common ground for addressing the types of images. As a for instance, Griswaldo seems to be making the implication that the article should be treated more as a religious article than as a biography about someone who happens to be a religious figure. Jayen seems to think the article's images should portray most common depictions. My opinion on the situation - not what I am working towards, was leaning towards the images should portray a couple depictions, and the rest, regardless of the type of depiction (veil or no veil, etc), should portray historical events relevant to the sections. I've got a little more reading to do before I feel I've got a decent understanding of each perspective. Maybe I can come up with proposals that will gain wider acceptance from those of all points of view... maybe not. Either way I think it worth the effort. I can't know whether I'll succeed or fail if I don't try - and conversely, I know I've failed if I don't try.
One final note. On the personal end of things, I don't care if the images are of palm trees, coffee, peanut butter or whatever. As long as policy is being uniformly applied here and elsewhere. I try to remove my biases from such and refer to policy to do so. A decent example is on the Ex-gay movement article where, even though I strongly agree with the statement I'd just changed "orientation... immutable... etc", I modified it to actually match what the source said. I'm also working on proposing moving the statement as well (as noted on the talk page), as I think it gains a slight bias in its current position. Ironically, both actions are contrary to my feelings of the topic at hand. But my feelings and opinion are not what matters, thus I am compelled to do such anyway. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was unable to comment on this earlier, As I was still blocked, but I would just like to mention that the user you accused me of being is incorrect. I do not even know who that user is and have never even seen him on Wikipedia before. If you like a check user can be done and you will see we are not the same person. I have come on here and admitted anything I had done wrong in the past and I don't appreciate being accused of things I did not do. Kci357 (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's way too late to do a checkuser (the users I mentioned were in early to late 2010), and in any case checkusers aren't done to confirm innocence. But in any case, I think few on the RD who have paid attention to you have doubts on your past identities based on behavioural evidence, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding, particularly since even with this user, you've in the past denied socking which I believe you now admit it. (Don't take this the wrong way but most of us could spot it within 2-3 questions.) Of the many identities you do admit to, you've still wasted enough time that I think it's fair to say few have any real desire to either prove the connection or listen to your attempts to disprove it. It's a moot point in any case since you've been unblocked and no one is trying to get you re-blocked based on your previous behlaviour. I didn't specifically oppose your unblock because although I felt there was little hope of you reforming, it seemed it would at worst waste a small amount of time of editors. I'd like for you to prove me wrong on your hope for reforming, but I have to say I have even less hope (of you re-forming) based on your decision to come here to make a denial, although you do seem to be putting more thought in to your posts which is a good thing. In any case, it's still your choice on whether you want to be a constructive editor from now on or not. I'm not going to monitor you, so my belief (and that others on the RD) isn't going to make any difference. Make no mistake about it, if you get blocked again your admitted history and whatever behaviour causes you to get re-blocked will be the cause. On the other hand, if you really do reform, whether you've had 10 or 25 problematic identities in the past isn't going to make any real difference if you're now clearly a constructive user. In other words, even if you really are telling the truth which as I think is clear, I don't really believe (WP:AGF only goes so far) the key thing for you is to behave well from now on, not worry about what past users people believe you are connected with. Nil Einne (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for moving this from the ANI at least, but you’ll forgive me if I don’t see this in the same way as you.
First, you seem fixated on the fact that I “closed the RM”, which I certainly did not do in any sense you mean.
Second, I didn’t see the other guy's action as “a minor imperfect behaviour”; I saw it as gaming the system, which is why I took it so seriously.
And third, I took it to ANI because I really wasn’t sure where else to go with it; my posts to those involved at the time were ignored, and the discussion I opened on the talk page was deleted. If it had been a content edit, I could have reverted it (Bold, Revert, Discuss) and opened a discussion; as it was, it was only reversable by an admin. So…
But to start at the top, I don’t agree that RM’s commonly end with a different result than they start with. The one’s I’ve seen are mostly “yes or no” issues, and if the issue is complicated enough to need a compromise position, it’s generally better to re-list, so everyone is clear what’s being agreed. And this wasn’t anything like that scenario; there were six people involved ( seven, if you count Nedim) and four different options being floated. The question being raised there wasn’t a better title for the article, but the correct one. A simple yes or no. Also, where do you get "a growing consensus" for the Cyrrhus option? The only person to suggest Cyrrhus as a title was Kauffner.
AFAICS the situation resolved itself when the page was moved back, so there seemed nothing more to discuss; which is why I suggested closing the discussion up and why,when no-one (including K) said "No, we still have other options to pursue.." I wrote it up and archived it. As indicated by the RM template.
And what I took a dim view of is the other guy waiting til that was done, then using the CSD process to get the pages moved (his preferred option, and one that wasn't shared by anyone else in the discussion that took place.) It takes a certain economy with the truth to describe such a move as "uncontroversial" and a certain brazenness to blank any attempts to discuss the issue.
And I'm not clear why I’m arguing with you about it, either: My beef was with Kauffner; what exactly is your place in this? You said you weren’t an admin, yet you chipped in on the ANI; and now we’re re-hashing it, again and again.
You obviously don’t have to agree with the way I see it, and I don’t have to agree with you. It doesn’t stop us moving on. Moonraker12 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on your talk page Nil Einne (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your lengthy exposition of why K was right, and why I am still wrong; you’ll appreciate I don’t see quite it that way, and I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. But at least you had the decency to discuss the matter, which is more than the other guy did.
You’re right, Station did say he thought Cyrrhus on its own could be a title option, in amongst his other comments. OTOH you've ignored the fact that Jeanine (the OP) and Nedim thought the original title was correct, as well as myself, so it wasn’t 2 against 1, as you’ve repeatedly suggested. And Jenks24 suggested Cyrrhus, Greater Syria, another compromise. But then, as the discussion indicates, the issue wasn’t to find an alternative title for the article, but the correct one.
And no, I’m not “still confused” about the “correct title” for the page at all. Whether Cyrrhus is correct or not is a moot point, as it was imposed without discussion. Had it been discussed, you could have chipped in there and added your opinion; the case could have been put, and we could have agreed or disagreed based on the argument.
You may think saying “shall we close this” isn’t sufficient indication that the discussion is going to be closed; I do, even without with the template admonition “This page has been moved. Please close the discussion, stating the reason and archive”.
And you may think tweaking a previous comment is adequate shorthand for saying “no we still need to discuss option x”; I don’t.
You may also think suggesting a closure, waiting for a reply, then when there’s no reply closing, is gaming the system (I didn’t); Or that labelling pages for an “uncontroversial delete and move”, immediately after a RM discussion where several different opinions were discussed, isn’t (I still do).
And you may find it "disturbing" that (having come across a neophyte editor using the RM process to query whether a title was correct or not) I thought it more appropriate to find out which was correct rather than faff around discussing compromise solutions, you’ll just have to stay disturbed.
And if you think the RM template was incorrect in telling us to close after the page had been moved, rather than requiring further discussion to find a “better, policy-based alternative”, you’ll have to take that up at WP:RM.
And no, I was not, and am not, “confused” about the purpose of ANI; but as reverting the move required admin actions, and as I was alleging what I saw as serious misconduct, it seemed appropriate at the time. The fact that no-one agreed with me there is why I dropped it...Moonraker12 (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your extensive comments there on the direct link issue, which is resolved already, I think it's best to go to my Talk page if you wish to discuss with me general BLP concerns that do not fit within the current ANI ambit, which concerns direct linking only, and the edit warring thereof. Thanks. Jabbsworth 00:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I think you may be right about the IP on Falklands War, check the ANI page, I think the guy is using open proxies for block evasion rather than a dynamic IP. Wee Curry Monstertalk 16:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
we wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Methodtalk 19:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possible way to seriously de-improve your editing experience here[edit]
Hi Nil Einne, I've noticed several of your comments recently at ANI, and what has struck me about them is that you appear to not be a semi-insane drama-seeking dung-disturber, but rather you seem to be trying to provide sober and cautious analysis well grounded in policy. I'm wondering if you've ever considered standing for the admin (+sysop) role? You seem to be a fairly reasonable person possessed of good (wiki- and non-) research skills and an awareness of how the encyclopedia works. If you are interested, you would most likely need to get involved in other project areas also, where you could demonstrate your understanding of policy; and there's the ever-present bogeyman for wonks, audited content contributions - but I think that one is surmountable given sufficient demonstrated clue. My own recommendation is hopelessly conflicted, as I've seen you for years acting in the RD context. I've pretty much always approved of your statements and actions there too, but it's a(n almost) completely different world. One thing I noticed reviewing your talk page (which could use archiving) is that you may tend to respond to editor posts on their own talk page rather than the page where the thread was started, just to let you know, my preference is for the entire discussion to stay in one place. So there's two criticisms already, anyway, just wondering if you've thought about the admin role. :) Franamax (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.
Thank you.
Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- TheHelpfulBot 16:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Hello, Nil Einne. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
So Nil Einne temp is claiming to be Nil Einne? Yet I don't see Nil Einne claiming to be Nil Einne temp, so do be aware you are on a very short leash. :) Franamax (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 13:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
I award you this barnstar for boldly giving in to temptation[11]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
