User talk:Ultraexactzz/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
This archive includes edits to User talk:Ultraexactzz from June and early July 2008.
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
May 8th IFDs still open
Could you take a look? Thanks Enigma message 02:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, I only saw two. I was surprised that they remained open this long. Cheers, Enigma message 02:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Please, have a look
Hello, thank you for participating in the discussion on the Board of administrators. I am still unable to edit my user page, but can edit all other pages. Do you know what is wrong?--Moldopodotalk 16:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, User:Flueras just started reverting all of my edits in the pure User:Bonaparte style (the one who supported Greater Romania propaganda and all related info alteration on Wikipedia). I asked her to stop and simply wait for a while, as I started writing the Moldavian-Ukrainian relations article. Instead I receive threats and true incivilities, which do not require a lengthy discussion as the one about the word "wicked" where you know very well. I can give you my word it is the sock of Bonny again because it is exactly teh same style and the same borderding insults remarks. Is there really nothing Wikipedia could do about this? She's been around for three years by now...--Moldopodotalk 17:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm a new user who uses my own real IP so, enough with this drama. On the other hand I see Moldopodo's long history of blocks......and your last time was it only 2 days ago? and for what??? Disruptive editing, persistent incivility. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren--Flueras (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Moldopodo
- 10:54, 2 June 2008 Moreschi (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Disruptive editing, persistent incivility. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren)
- 19:13, 15 March 2008 Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (disruptive editing at Balti Steppe)
- 05:35, 31 December 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (false reason. For the last 7 days there was no edit conflict)
- 21:29, 30 December 2007 Scientizzle (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 14 days (Edit warring)
- 13:22, 23 December 2007 FisherQueen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Edit warring)
- 21:10, 26 November 2007 Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (on the proviso that he not go edit-warring again, espcially on romanian-related articles)
- 21:03, 25 November 2007 AGK (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours (disruptive editing: edit warring in order to push a particular opinion, anti-consensus edits despite repeated warnings, failure to heed cautions, et cetera)
- 20:42, 19 November 2007 Nat (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit warring)
(Latest | Earliest) View (newer 50) (older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
- Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log"
- Flueras - As a new user (registered today), you may not be aware of a policy we have around here called Assume Good Faith. Simply put, editors are required to assume that other editors are making a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Tagging a page with an inuse template in order to expand an article is not disruptive, whereas reverting a user's edits across multiple articles and threatening them with blocks can be. If you disagree with someone, by all means - discuss it with them and come to a consensus. Just because a user has been blocked (and unblocked, as the log you posted notes) does not mean anything when they are attempting to make good faith edits, even if you disagree with those edits. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Moldopodo --Flueras (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Why you think many people get tired of this disruptive editor? Because, after his block is finished he tries again to edit war and to impose its POV. Flueras (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please see this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=prev&oldid=217301591 also. The way he inserts his POV again and again. Just today..Not to mention the way he, as a russian which hates NATO, wants that Moldova never to join NATO. See his edits. Flueras (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention he removed sourced text. I mean, even in the declaration of independence of Moldova from Russia it was said very clear that is Romanian language! And what did he do it? He removed this sentence... How vandalism!! --Flueras (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- When you asked him why he removed a sourced statement, did he provide a reason? I hadn't noticed that removal in the diffs from that article - though there are quite a few from both of you over the last day or so. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I can link you the discussion with that troll in the archives, if you have time to spend it with that guy..:) Don't you see it's redundant to feed the troll? he's what he is, a disruptive editor. --Flueras (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Moldopodo&month=&year= see his last 500 edits... --Flueras (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Ultraexactzz. Flueras is an obvious sockpuppet of user:Bonaparte, so wasting your time in discussions with him is probably a bad idea. I have already informed our Bonaparte purge squad, but they are yet to react. I suppose I can formally ask for a checkuser, but this case is pretty obvious as it is. How many non-sock users do you know, who are aware of such things as the Digwuren ArbCom decision and the various WP policies he cites on their very first day on Wiki? He's getting more disruptive now, so a block is sorely needed to restore a semblance of order. --Illythr (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Another Russian who loves Moldova. Show your evidences. And I looked in block log of Moldopodo, where is also the link :) Flueras (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Look his mess http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Moldavian-Romanian --Flueras (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Flueras has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the banned user Bonaparte. Khoikhoi 19:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem. It was pretty obvious. ;-) Khoikhoi 19:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
For a regular non-rouge admin, AGF is the correct default modus operandi. For we have the Quenchers of the Truth to unclog the |'s... --Illythr (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of page entitled Mathew Regan
Hey ultra dude why did you delete my page?? I gave you a valid reason for keeping it and you deleted it anyway - what gives? I'll even send you a picture of the man in question if you don't believe me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by RipKurtDonaldCobain (talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
Hello, Ultraexactzz, and thank you for your recent participation in my RfA, which was closed per WP:NOTNOW after reaching a vote tally of 5/15/2. While I am disappointed in the outcome, I understand that it - as well as the comments left by yourself and others - was in the best interests of Wikipedia at this time. I plan to take everything that was written to heart and improve myself here on Wikipedia with a goal of perhaps accepting a nomination again in the future, should someone choose to nominate me. As a way of gathering further feedback, I have created a page in my user space for other editors to leave comments about things that they might have observed during my RfA and to continue my "education process," as it may be considered. If you would like to contribute to that page, it may be found here. Again, thank you for participating and I appreciate your comments! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for the complement on the FAR for Mercury. It was easy to work on having such a good team to work with. :-) -- Kheider (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you from me too, especially since you did the vast majority of the work :) Everyone involved in the Solar System featured topic owes you a debt of gratitude. Serendipodous 05:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You're Akanaware's puncher
You're Akanaware's puncher
Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Cordless Drill
Thanks for terminating that lot. I had somebody moving the page while I was trying to tag and explain it so it was all over the place. Exxolon (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Can you delete all the junk left over I've just speedy tagged too? Thanks Exxolon (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
FAR for Mercury (planet)
FYI. Thanks again for all of your help on this project. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well thank you for all of your work in getting the page back up to snuff. It looks much improved.—RJH (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you deserve something more than a barnstar for your work:
|
A ticket to Mars | |
|
|
Serendipodous 16:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
My Rfa
|
Thank You
Thank you for your comment on my RFA. I feel that your "apprenticeship" comment got through to me the most. I will make sure I learn everything correctly before my next go around. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hiya - thanks for the comment ! I suspect he wont get adminship this time, but I wouldn't want it to be purely because of a choice of userboxes. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Besides, I wanted to make a nice uncontroversial statement that wouldn't make me too many enemies - that might be my name up there one day ! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Golf Club Management username change
It wasn't a "catch" on my part ... the name-watcher bot flags that "management" string automatically (as implying authority), and reported it to WP:UAA, where I dealt with it. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Between Raising Hell and Amazing Grace
Thank you for your prompt response to that AFD, and for informing me on your action. Have a great day! Spell4yr (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
Thanks for your mature and useful comments, and for taking the time to get involved in the first place :). I'll be enacting the changes advised by supporters/opposers/fence-sitters so i'll hopefully see you in 4-6 months :). Ironholds 20:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This user already received a final warning from me, not five minutes ago. See the user talk history for the multiple warnings the user has received today, that didn't always get noticed due to the user's policy of blanking their talk page. -- roleplayer 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleting page Dave James
Hi there, just wondering why you deleted the page Dave James.I really admire the man and his achievements, so I was curious as to why you don't feel he deserves a Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Action10 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you! Kivar2 (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Chiacig??
I'm not sure what the Chiacig controversy is all about, but see contribs of Lisa-1982 (talk · contribs). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Added to the existing ANI thread in case you're offline. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: ArbCom statement
I was unaware both of the mistake and the correction you made. Thanks. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
My RFB
Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
A note
I must have been on the page too long. I was looking for the AfD that was putting the log into a stub category, and I closed this AfD only to find that you did it about 10 minutes before hand. Just letting you know in case you noticed. I reverted myself. :) — MaggotSyn 12:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Your help please...
You were the closing admin for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Elliott. I'd like to determine whether this article was about the Time magazine writer. There seems to be lots of references to support a clear article about him.
- "Michael Elliot: He's having the Time of his life". The Independent. January 15 2007. Retrieved 2008-06-13.
Michael Elliott was not just the author of this global cover story, he also edited every edition of the world's most recognisable news magazine from Ireland in the west to Japan in the east.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - "Michael Elliott (TIME International) - Moderator". CEO Challenge 2008. 2008. Retrieved 2008-06-13.
One of the world's leading commentators on international affairs, Elliott joined TIME as editor-at-large in 2001, after a year spent as editor-in-chief of eCountries, an internet-based news and information service on the global economy. Elliott spent 10 years at The Economist where he was political editor and Washington bureau chief, and the founding author of the Bagehot and Lexington columns, the first columns ever published in The Economist. He then spent seven years at Newsweek, and was editor of Newsweek International. He is the only person ever to have held top editorial positions at all three leading international publications.
- "Michael Elliott, TIME Asia Editor". Time magazine. Wednesday, June 2, 2004. Retrieved 2008-06-13.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)
Could you pleas userify it for me at User:Geo Swan/Michael Elliott. Geo Swan (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your prompt reply.
- I linked to Michael Elliott on December 24 2007. It is my policy to check that the links I reference actually point where I think they point. If the version from December 24 2007 actually pointed to an attack page then I lapsed.
- I'd like to know whether I lapsed. Would you mind, either, double-checking the state of the article, as of December 24 2007 -- or userifying the article?
- Thanks for your 2nd prompt reply. Well, it sounds like I definitely lapsed in checking where my references pointed last December. Good to know.
- Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
DYK
|
On 16 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Golf Club Managers' Association, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Gatoclass (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for helping to clean up after my creation of the unneeded category "Slavistics scholars". Cheers, Lini (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Question
i made that page about myself as two of my other friends did and i put it on my talk page so why does it keep getting deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Trace (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. No. I would say that at the moment, sourcing is the main issue. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I am wondering whether or not SDOs (the abbreviation for Scattered disc objects) should be changed to scattered disc objects in the article. I chose the latter because it would be more encyclopedic, but as an admin, what do you think? ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll help this user out
In re: User_talk:Geasterb#Image:CouncilonCompetitivenesslogo.png, if you want to, restore the image and I'll write a {{Logo fur}} for it. Poor kid is trying really hard, we can cut him a bit of slack. Franamax (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! I did a hack job on it, never done a logo before, so critique/delete at will. The funny thing here is, we're just getting going on Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism (and pls contribute there) and here I am finding someone else's FUR and copying it - tho I did make the attribution. Interesting how we all learn the wiki by copying others... Franamax (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Serendipodous
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Keep up the good work
Thanks for fixing the duplicate reference entries. -Species8473 (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Rfa thanks
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA. The Rfa was successful with 64 Support and 1 Neutral. None of this would have happened without your support. I would also like to thank my nominator Wizardman and my sensei/co-nom bibliomaniac15--Lenticel (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC) |
Council on Competitiveness page
First of all, sorry I messed up some formatting things like putting posts on hte bottom rather than top, improper signing, etc. I don't know anything about this webpage format, I've been teaching myself how to use Wikipedia by opening up the edit pages of other articles and figuring out what each thing means.
Second, I don't expect you to fix everything up for me, but I certainly appreciate it! Especially things that I haven't quite figured out how to do yet like catorgize things or how to properly site images. I just gave up trying to add an image beacuse I figured it wasn't worth trying to figure out how to properly post the logo, so thanks for doing that for me! I had planned on reviewing the site some more but I was being doing work and havent gotten the chance to look at is as much as I would like. One thing I think I have to clarify is that while I do work for the Council, I wasn't told to do this page/doing this isn't part of my job. I'm doing this on my own time beacuse I was surprised the Council did'nt have one yet.
I have made further edits to the texts, added third party sources (mostly news sources), and tweaked it a little more
Agian, thanks for all your help on this. Take a look and if you still have issues let me hear it.
p.s. I'm not sure what consitutes sending a "message" on wikipedia (like you did to me) so I posted it on my wall as well as both of yours.
- Thanks, ~G 17:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
MediaWiki edit
You're welcome. :) It was a simple fix. Acalamari 20:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
User talk pages and U1
U1 is normally only for pages in User:, and not for pages in the User talk: - here's a discussion on the subject at WT:CSD. I'd have declined the speedy request on his talk pages, but he and I occasionally haven't gotten along, and I didn't want to be seen to be poking him in the eye, so I left it for another admin. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Quick question
When the time comes, would you be willing to nominate me for Rfa? ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- No. I'll probably go for it in late July, early August. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
RE: re: in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bjweeks
Was that a legit warning? O noez! :) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- In all seriousness, was it? It got my attention. — MaggotSyn 21:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Heehee, I didn't think so. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 05:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Traceless Biometrics
Can you say what is wrong with the folowing (last section in the "Traceless Biometrics" article):
Who will put an end to the never-ending homeland blindness?
[1]Now it will become ‘fashionable’ to wear “Biometrics’ Gloves” (other person’s biometric disguises) mimicking the presence of innocent biometric genuine owners’…
Sounds Terrifying?
There is a much more important issue rather than why ‘Biometrics collections' present a serious threat to privacy rights. What is the effect of ‘fake biometric' on our liberty and the criminal justice system? More importantly, what is more harmful, a successful attack or ‘Faked Biometrics'? An immediate answer may be that a successful attack is more harmful. It seems logical. However, further analysis reveals that in fact ‘Faked Biometrics' pose a greater threat to innocents. The reason lies in the fact that law system can evaluate damages resulting from malicious activities and can quantify them. However, damages that occur from a wide spread ‘Faked Presence' on the crime scene created by a third-parties putting end to these fundamental evidence legality, is much more difficult to predict and protect against.
Let's look at an example. In most legal systems, if the facts in a case are ambiguous, the legal system would tend towards letting a suspect go, letting a guilty person walk free rather than finding an innocent person guilty. With (faked) biometrics evidence in scene of the crime as long as biometrics’ evidence will stay acceptable (??!!) it could never happen... For lawmakers, it has long been clear that such a ‘Faked Evidence' (finding an innocent person guilty), bears a higher price on society and liberty than enduring a legal attack.
--Michael (Micha) Shafir - CTO, Founder - Innovya R&D (talk) 09:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Unlimited Register Machine
Can I at least see where the evidence of copyright problems were discovered? The article was not pasted nor typed from the book. The chapter represented there is 16 printed pages long. The class I had used perhaps six sessions to go over that material. Mathematical symbolism is a language -- should all Spanish or Arabic or Greek letters be deleted because it is a language and owned by whoever printed it first? -- carol (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- The examples of what the standard mathematical language means were changed like R2 is equal to R9 then go to the 11th instruction -- the example in the book is R2 is equal to R6 then go to the 10th instruction.
- The solutions for the problems were not in the book as examples. I made that decision to avoid this.
- Here is a real life problem as well that perhaps should be deleted because it is an example from this book. An infinite loop. I saw how images are deleted from wiki commons -- they are moved to one of the encyclopedia wikis. Then, upload bots reupload them to wiki commons. It is by the arguments presented to me here about my articles, a copyrighted infinite loop which should be deleted as a copyright infringement. You want to be deleted? -- carol (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps put it back so the three words or so that were perceived to potentially be a problem can be repaired and I can learn from those who know enough to delete things what it is to prevent the deletion.
- I understand that there seems to be a worldwideweenie club and I am probably not going to be invited to be a member of it, but once you join it, is it impossible to get out of it?
- The request for assistance with rendering a not equals in LaTeX was original, well written and regarding a problem with the perfection that was almost that article and an interesting answer that a person who is qualified to delete an article about this subject should be qualified also to answer.
- You do understand how many books have published examples of infinite looping as is what you have started here; and living within such strong reactions to such minor offenses -- you want to live that way? I don't want to live that way, I try not to do that kind of thing to people. You really want it to be like that? If not, put the article back and edit it. It is a wiki and everyone can edit. Everyone can chat about a problem at some meaningless web page somewhere also. I would be curious the reason you answered the idle chatters instead of editing or if you were qualified to remove the article -- how come you didn't answer the /neq question?
- Are you owned? How much is the price if you are owned? I am also sorry if you find the questions to be rude, the situation is requiring that I attempt to understand and all of these are possibilities in what made you think the article needed to be deleted.
Castelbouc
Hello. While I could probably understand why you deleted the Castelbouc redirect page (need of its own article, I believe), I think that labeling the deletion as "(G3: Vandalism: db-pagemove)" is not appropriate. Where is the vandalism????? Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. I have added a comment on my talk page (see there for details): the redirect was in fact OK according to your definition. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Future violations
Hi there Ultraexactzz! According to this deletion log entry you deleted "Future violations" because of G3 (pure vandalism). According to WP:VANDAL, this would require the article author (me) to have tried to "deliberately attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". In my view it should be obvious from the article text that there was no intent to disrupt Wikipedia. Please reply here. Kind regards Ryttaren (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 25 | 23 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 26 | 26 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Exeter City
I told him to leave the Exter City League Two thing the way i edited it to but he didn't and then put it back to Conference National howcome he dosen't get a warning (soz if my english is terrible im disabled) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.136.47 (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
but i still don't get why we should keep it at Conference National officially Exeter are in League Two and Aldershot have been changed to League Two so i still don't get why even though its fact Exeter are in League Two but we still leave it at Conference National and won't new viewers get confused when they see it say Exter in Conference National
A80
Initially the page just consisted of "A80" not a redirect that's why I tagged it; just to let you know. Thanks --Bit Lordy (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Edits
I must inform you that you edit-conflicted me on the closure of that MfD. 
I also blame Firefox 3 for being so slow at loading pages to the point of making me revile it. —Animum (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualifiction - CONCACAF Group C
When deleting pages Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualifiction - CONCACAF Group C please remember to delete the double redirects as well Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - CONCACAF Group 3 thank you Dbiel (Talk) 22:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: On the election of the Arbcom
Wow, you have really thought about this - great stuff. I would say there's little point expending too much of your energy into refining the operational stuff if the principle (more Arbs, shorter terms) isn't agreed.
At the same time, showing some thought on "how this could be done" would be beneficial. I would put it on a separate page (say, Wikipedia:Arbcom electoral reform), tag it as an proposal for now, and work on it there.
Then post a link "for interest" on the RFC. If the RFC starts getting clogged up with too much detail and discussion of that detail, nothing will ever get done. Neıl 龱 13:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Your kind words in my time of grief have helped memore than you can know. You and others have helped me enormously, and made me see clearly that we at Wikipedia re more than anonymous editors, but a family who helps each other. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. Your generosity of spirit will never be forgotten. Jeffpw (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your note of concern. While I would have reacted as Aleta did in her position, I am ashamed and embarrassed that so many know I am not made of granite, as I like to come across. I promise you I would never do anything which would make Isaac unhappy. Jeffpw (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Family Online Safety Institute
20:36, 18 June 2008 Ultraexactzz (Talk | contribs) deleted "Family Online Safety Institute" (A7 (group): Group/band/company/etc.; doesn't indicate importance/significance) I tried to create the page to inform people about FOSI. On a seperate note, I had permission to use the material that other administrators said was copyrighted, so I am working on that. Do you have any general advice on how I could better indicate the importance and signficance of FOSI. I was trying to expand the article, but it was deleted before I was able to indicate that it was Under Construction or expand it more to show its significance. Thanks for any help you can provide so I can try to create a page for FOSI that better indicates is significance and meets Wikipedia guidelines. (If you want to check, the site is www.fosi.org) Pastadog42 (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've replied on your talk page. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: User talk:92.17.167.51
As a constructive criticism, "nonsense" is not defined as you say it in your above point...
"[nonsense] does not include poor writing, vandalism, material not in English, badly translated material, hoaxes, etc."
and also, according to wikipedia:patent nonsense:
"[nonsense is] Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." which I believe is a perfectly just statement about the pages I have tagged. Therefore, unless you have any further argument please restore my tags.
92.17.167.51 (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've replied on your talk page. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Re:User:Xasha
The dispute with the user Xasha is by far not resolved as soon as his blocking expires. The user already announced (indirectly) in his talk page the intention to edit those articles: Demographics of Moldova, Latin European peoples, Moldovan language, Odessa oblast and this image. Meanwhile he called my edits "panromanian propaganda" (see here and here) though he refuses to talk with me about his objections (as e.g. in the case of the articles Latin European peoples or Moldovans and some other cases too) and despite of the fact that I mostly presented unpartially sources , as from the US or the German government, as well as Western European studies (some of them from universities). For him, every sentence that contradits with his personal POV must be delted (or undone). His POV is mostly of Stalinist origin and he tries to impose the Stalinist POV in this Encyclopaedia.
Believe or not, I already anticipate a new edit war from him soon after his unblocking.--Olahus (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is highly likely indeed, seeing as how Olahus used Xasha's block to finally push his edits through in all of the articles mentioned above. Once his block expires, Xasha will probably bite the bait and try to revert back, springing the trap thus laid out for him. Wicked.
- As for the conflict, this is a classic ethnic feud over the question whether Moldovans can be considered a separate ethnicity from the Romanians or not. Due to all the controversy around the question, there is no definite answer to that, so revert wars and ad hominems (fascists/stalinists, mutual vandalism accusations etc) abound. The only definite decision would be a topic ban for both, but I guess I'm too bloodthirsty... --Illythr (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say it's a dispute that won't go away for a decade or so (until the Moldovans finally decide who they are). Until then there's only so much one can to to try and keep both POVs from spreading out too much. I use a simple criterion to identify partisan POV: frequent usage of the magic words "stalinist", "fascist" and "vandalism" when referring to established opposition. --Illythr (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Illythr. It's very funny that you porpose a topic ban for both me and Xasha as long as ypou sustain to 100% Xasha's edits concerning the Moldovans... No matter weather Xasha is banned or not, for you is important that I should be banned, so that Xasha's Stalinist POV (yes, this POV is indeed Stalinist and I can proove it to you if you want to) may remain because you will revert my edits after I am banned. Stop playing the "unpartial user" here because you're definately not and it makes you look hypocritical. A short look in the revision history of the article Moldovans is the best proove that you sutain completely Xasha's personal POV. The problem on your case is that you don't have enough arguments against my version (actually "my" version is unpartially and it is the one mostly accepted in the Western World, but does it matter to you ?) so you are looking for alternatives to get out of me (as you did in the talk page of the adminstrator Tariqabijotu when you porposed him to ban me acoding to a rule that applies to edit wars concerning the Balkan Peninsula (despite of the fact that Moldova is not a Balkanic state). But, as I already said above, for you does only matter to get out of an uncomfortable user like me in oder to push for your Soviet-Stalinist POV. But in case you didn't know it: Wikipedia is not a source for Sovietic-Stalinist propaganda and you (as well as your fellow Xasha) should take it in account. --Olahus (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, don't worry, even if you two get banned, there's plenty Defenders of the Truth to thwart my wicked plans. I'm certainly not impartial here (I do indeed kinda sympathize with Xasha's point, although I disapprove of his behaviour and am not sure whether his reasons correlate with mine), but I find your silly " you're a evil Stalinist!" - "And you're a dirty Nazi!" games counter-productive. Eh, you got that part about my comments at Tariq's (and your) page totally wrong, but nevermind.
- @UltraExactZZ: Another excellent criterion I forgot to mention is "I'm the shining beacon of Truth here, and you all conspire against me!" described here in its full glory. Triggers rarely, but worth lots of lulz every single time it does. --Illythr (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Illythr. It's very funny that you porpose a topic ban for both me and Xasha as long as ypou sustain to 100% Xasha's edits concerning the Moldovans... No matter weather Xasha is banned or not, for you is important that I should be banned, so that Xasha's Stalinist POV (yes, this POV is indeed Stalinist and I can proove it to you if you want to) may remain because you will revert my edits after I am banned. Stop playing the "unpartial user" here because you're definately not and it makes you look hypocritical. A short look in the revision history of the article Moldovans is the best proove that you sutain completely Xasha's personal POV. The problem on your case is that you don't have enough arguments against my version (actually "my" version is unpartially and it is the one mostly accepted in the Western World, but does it matter to you ?) so you are looking for alternatives to get out of me (as you did in the talk page of the adminstrator Tariqabijotu when you porposed him to ban me acoding to a rule that applies to edit wars concerning the Balkan Peninsula (despite of the fact that Moldova is not a Balkanic state). But, as I already said above, for you does only matter to get out of an uncomfortable user like me in oder to push for your Soviet-Stalinist POV. But in case you didn't know it: Wikipedia is not a source for Sovietic-Stalinist propaganda and you (as well as your fellow Xasha) should take it in account. --Olahus (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say it's a dispute that won't go away for a decade or so (until the Moldovans finally decide who they are). Until then there's only so much one can to to try and keep both POVs from spreading out too much. I use a simple criterion to identify partisan POV: frequent usage of the magic words "stalinist", "fascist" and "vandalism" when referring to established opposition. --Illythr (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
A typical edit without principles of the user Xasha can be seen here when he reverted this edit made by me. He "excused" his removal stating that OSCE would have accuse Vladimir Socor for fallacies and "outrageous fabrications". And even if he was accused there is unclear if it can be regarded as a reason to neglect the estimations regarding the Moldovans from Romania, because Vladimir Socor is a venerated analyst of East European affairs and the accusals of William Hill (indeed, William Hill accused Vladimir Socor, not the organization OSCE) have nothing to do with the number of Moldovans from Romania (see here).--Olahus (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Seeing as how Socor quotes Voronin there anyway, it was indeed wrong to remove his article. However, you proceeded to push that idea about Romanians being Moldovans without gathering consensus first, so I find Xasha's removal of that piece justified. I suggested to hold a poll on that issue, remember? ;-) I would even vote "neutral" on it... --Illythr (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
So how should I do?
Actually, I don't know what should I say right now.I just want my bot account back and continue my works.(or should I request other works permission?)--Alex S.H. Lin 10:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I Just made some texts in discussion section(sry, my grammar is not very good).If community unblock my account , I won't run the test works without RBA or discuss --Alex S.H. Lin 18:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- ^ On December 21, deputy attorney general Paul J. McNulty sent a memo (PDF) to federal law enforcement agency heads detailing DOJ’s Law Enforcement Information Sharing Program and directing the agencies to participate in the program. (http://www.innovya.com/McNulty.pdf)