User talk:Aranherunar/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →
Archive 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.

Contents

Warning

I had made my point clear. "I agree with LDHan. People are talking Mao Zedong, a Han Chinese person; Puyi, a Manchu Chinese person; Bill Clinton, an Anglo-Celtic person. So why just around China. Wouldn't it be necessary somtimes to distinguish Han Chinese from other ethnic groups in the US? I think there is no need to rephrase the sentense. The only thing we need to do is to delete "around". If people can distinguish Han Chinese from other minorities in China, they naturally can distinguish Han Chinese from other ethnic groups in the world, of course not just around China." This view is also accepted by other editors. Edipedia 15:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am replying here because Edipedia is/was deleting everything that gets into his talk page.
If it is accepted by other editors, how come you broke the 3RR in less than forty minutes, hmm? Your claim was also invalid because I definitely didn't, well, "accept" it.
I have explained over and over why the term "around" is used, and so have many other editors. I'm not sure I understood you completely this time, but Bill Clinton is not even a Chinese - we just call him an Anglo-Celtic person. The term Han Chinese, as said in the article, is used to distinguish the Han people from other Chinese minorities, and these minorities, usually Chinese, seldom appear outside the Chinese sphere of influence. Aran|heru|nar 15:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have also deleted your warning. I wasn't edit warring, you were. I requested the page for protection, you requested to unprotect it, and then made four edits against consensus to be reverted by two other users. These illegitimate warnings are considered vandalism, and I wish in good faith that you will discuss in a civil and logical manner rather than resorting to tit-for-tatting on user pages. Aran|heru|nar 15:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

End of discussion

I have to admit I'm confused

...by your comments at Talk:The Rule of Four (book) - can you help me understand what you were getting at with that? Sirmob 23:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

End of discussion

The weather in Moscow

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the article The weather in Moscow. Your test worked, and has been or will soon be removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with my user talk page! It worked too. C'est magnifique! Aranherunar 05:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

End of discussion

Thann Cuu

Thann Cuu I can to edit a niew paage now. --Uzerbaaji 03:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

hEY un uzbekistan we cannot hear ushc wordings. I roport that ai IM NOT L,EADRE OF TBHE WORLD. I am humble uzbek admin/editor. id angry NO MORE STOP IT. --Uzerbaaji 16:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This notfair. I must remind peoples of uzbekistan and wolrd that tyhey must add more. --Uzerbaaji 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

without miny notice reminding peoples to add extra to aricles trhan people is too not add. I doing wikipedia favourings (a fAVOUR) --Uzerbaaji 16:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

so admin wont be me? i try and my hradest to help wikipediaans with work. I demand adminns please. I want ad,in. how i get admidn? give admin. --Uzerbaaji 17:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

End of discussion

List of Uzbek proverbs

When you listed this article for deletion (if you did), I'm sure you didn't mean to delete the contents. I have restored it. Deb 17:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Well, blanking is not a deletion method. You need to nominate articles for deletion under the guidelines, so that people can see the contents and judge for themselves. It's worth swotting up on the conventions. See Wikipedia:Deletion Deb 11:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

End of discussion

Image:Uzbekwikiwk.JPG

Per machine translation, somewhat massaged (I don't know whether the original was dodgy Russian or the machine translation from Systrans isn't too good), "Я люблю Wikipedia. Очень хорошо. Я хочу быть admin. Сделайте мной admin" translates as "I love Wikipedia very much. I want to be an admin. Make me an admin". I'm having increasing difficulty assuming good faith with the user concerned... Tonywalton  | Talk 08:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Which means it's not a logo. It should be changed to be under a free license, or just simply deleted. Aranherunar 08:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The second option looks good to me. CSD:G3 (Vandalism)? Tonywalton  | Talk 08:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps you can tag it. I'm "starting to get" fed up with this user. Aranherunar 08:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I use wikipedia informaition for essay. Tutor Brevosky give me fail. Tutor Brevosky will make account and talk. I fail vostok english house. I got a grade ğΨ+++. My tutor brevesky cane me now for fail. Tutor brevosky might legeal acction with wikpedia for my fail . why i fail essay with wikipoedia helping? --Uzerbaaji 08:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

End of discussion

Re: Japanese langauge classification

Thank you for the note, and please accept my apology for the thoughtless choice of language. — Haeleth Talk 12:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

End of discussion

Re:Blanking talk page

According to Wikipedia:Removing warnings, "after a reasonable time has elapsed, archiving one's talk page, including the vandal warning, is acceptable." According to Wikipedia:Talk pages#Etiquette, "Others delete comments after they have responded to them." and "Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile."

User:Heqong was blanking the entire page and not merely removing warnings. Given that the page was of moderate length, and some editors in good standing actively remove completed discussions from their talk pages, it was appropriate fo Heqong to do this. Furthermore, only a small proportion of the page consisted of warnings and Heqong did not seem to be purposely ignoring other users or refusing to respond to their comments. The page was blanked long after the warnings had been posted

Based on my understanding of the policy, it is fine to archive one's talk page via blanking, but it is not fine to selectively remove warnings from a talk page, especially if this is done out of anti-social tendencies or spite, as evidenced by a vindictive edit summary such as "Delete shit". Just because a page contains warnings does not mean it can never be archived. --Jiang 12:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of a talk page does not constitute destruction of evidence because the page history is being preserved. If Heqong were to move the talk page to a subpage, and then request the subpage be deleted in order to erase the page history, then we should be concerned. In any case, if page blanking somehow disrupts the arbcom evidence gathering process (which is already over), then it is up to arbcom (and not us) to take action. But I don't think it has, or is being, disrupted since arbcom evidence pages often link to page history and diff links, with the view that current versions of pages are always changing. The evidence has been already presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Heqong/Evidence, and arbcom is currently in the voting phase, based on the evidence provided on that page. Nowhere on that page is the current version of User talk:Heqong linked.

By "long after the warnings had been posted" I did not mean it as a matter of months. I meant it as a matter of days. Normally, when users purposely try to blank and ignore warnings, it is done immediately, within hours, or at least by the next time they log in. It is not done after six days of active editing and active discussion on the very same talk page.

The particular post, which you claim did not receive a response from Heqong, was responded to here. Although many of the posts concerned Heqong's behavior, most were not actual "warnings for vandalism". This was an actual warning, issued by an administrator warning of an impending block. Most of the other postings did not qualify as such. Regardless, I really don't see how the blanking was done to deliberately mislead other editors or to ignore the warnings. Heqong simply blanked his pages and left, which is entirely permissible.

Your creation of a separate archive was unnecessary and unneeded. The archive already exists in the page history. The page history is linked from the talk page itself, via the "history" tab. Anyone seeing a blank page will know a history exists, and will go there if the need arises, as any blank page without a history would qualify for speedy deletion. If you truly remain concerned that the page blanking might disrupt the arbcom case, the make it known here.--Jiang 13:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making it clear. Aranherunar 15:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

End of discussion

Placing Warnings

I posted a reply here: User_talk:Kehrli#Note_on_template_use. --Kehrli 13:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

More questions here: User_talk:Kehrli#Note_on_template_use --Kehrli 14:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

User Kehrli's reply

End of discussion

Re: History Portal

What nonsense. Wikipedia does not prefer any form of English over another. It simply defers to the spelling employed by the original author. This is long standing convention and is explained under our Manual of Style. Thanks, --cj | talk 12:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding a silly little "Please do not change the spelling of the word." note does not assist with improving the article. Similarly, your comments on cj's talk page are rude and nonsensical, and do not help with solving this problem. Your actions are in opposition to policy, particularly the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (which you have interpreted incorrectly judging by your comments so far). Start complying with policy and stop rudely harassing other users. michael talk 16:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The text of Portal:History/Intro is substantially the same as the 23 December 2005 version which was the first to introduce the word "Civilisation" (and it had an 's'). Therefore keeping an 'S' is the correct thing to do under the style guide unless the topic under discussion relates to some region with a particular dialect of English that spells it differently. In fact, the style guide suggests finding a different word that doesn't have semantic or spelling variation - in this case I doubt there is one, so the word needs to stay. I'm uncertain which link to "civilization" you refer to. The only related link I can see in Portal:History is to Portal:Classical Civilisation (again with an 'S') so the 'S' is consistent on the page. Given the flag and first userbox on cj's user page, I doubt he was deliberately using British English.
Incidentally, which of Michael's remarks above do you feel was a personal attack on you, rather than a description of a particular edit, comment or action? --Scott Davis Talk 02:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll reply here as this is related to more than one person. See also Reply to beneaththelandslide.
Scott Davis, thank you for your clarification. I have failed to make my point clear so far, again. Please note that the words "Civilisation" and "Civilization" are both British English (though it sounds strange. Perhaps it's a mistake in Wiktionary). Civilisation is simply a far, far less common variant of Civilization. In fact, you can see from the edit history that many people feel that "Civilisation" is a wrong spelling. This is not the matter of dialects - as I have exemplified on Beneaththelandslide's talk page, "I" is a variant of "Aye"("Yes") but it is nearly never used. The same case is with Civilisation/Civilization. Civilisation is very rarely used, and many think it is actually a wrong spelling.
The text being the same does not justify reverting the edit again and again, because there's plenty of versions you see actually use the word "civilization", but are reverted by Cyberjunkie. I simply find the reverting to be very unnecessary. The policy is used so that edit wars over spellings would not happen - and though the users who changed the spelling are not following the style policy, reverting them makes it worse, because somebody will change it back, and it will be reverted again(actually, about half the edits in the page history are changing "civilisation" to "civilization" or vice versa). To prevent this happening, I have added a note telling users not to change the spelling again - which is promptly removed without discussion, and deemed as "silly", a word which I rather "dislike".
In conclusion, changing it from "civilisation" to "civilization" is not according to the policy, as I fully understand, but only if they are treated as two dialects of English, which they aren't, and therefore the style guide should not be considered. Moreover, changing it back over 10 times does not help anybody. I would have thought an admin would have enough sense to understand that (or read my comment, which explains it), instead of classifying my comment as nonsense and ignoring it.
Again, I hope I do not sound "rude and nonsensical" in this reply.Aranherunar 02:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Scott Davis, actually I find this comment "stop rudely harassing other users" to be directed to me rather than an action - because I have never done such a thing as "rudely harassing other users". If Beneaththelandside feels harassed, that's fine, I apologize for leaving this note in his user talk page, which he may somehow intrepret as "rude harassment". As he had said "users", I assume he meant Cyberjunkie as well, which I do not find that I am "harassing" and have to disagree with Beneaththelandslide, because Cyberjunkie is perfectly capable of speaking for himself whether it is a harassment or not, and whether I shall "stop" it. As I understand from Cyberjunkie's note on his user page, "...if you disagree with something I have done, or if you would like assistance, leave a message on my talk page", that this sort of "harassment" considered by Beneaththelandslide, which is a discussion on edits, is acceptable to Cyberjunkie. Again I apologize for the harassment if it really did annoy Beneaththelandslide, but have to warn Beneaththelandslide so that he will start to judge others' actions with the correct wording. Aranherunar 03:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You may well be correct that both "civilisation" and "civilization" are British English. However Australian English prefers "civilisation" and American English prefers "civilization" - two dialects that do differ in spelling. Incidentally, I consider the HTML comment to be OK. --Scott Davis Talk 05:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I realized I have overreacted by warning the user for his comment, and was going to remove it when I found out that it had already been removed by the user itself, with the edit summary "rmv crap". This is a serious breach of Wikipedia rules, including offensive edit summary and removing warning on own talk page. As I was going to remove the warning anyway, the violation of the second rule will not be accounted for. I have reverted the change since he does not seem to have any regret with his offensive accusations while all I did was leaving a note on his talk page. Feel free to comment.
As for the "civilisation" and "civilization" matter, I perfectly understand that to change the "s" into "z" or vice versa is not necessary and may cause an edit war, and editors should not do so, which is why I left a note "Please do not change the spelling of the word" on the talk page, then to be promptly removed as "silly". Thank you again. Aranherunar 05:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Stop wasting my time and harassing me; surely you can better spend your time improving articles rather than leaving pointless and illegitimate messages on my talk page. michael talk 05:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Surely, a reminder for your incivility [1] is required? Anyhow I do not find my comments "rude". I would be glad if you can point them out. In the meantime, please also read the Wikipedia policy WP:CIVIL. Please also do not remove warnings from your talk page - that is completely unnecessary. If you find my warnings to be "illegitimate", kindly point it out. Aranherunar 05:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Stop wasting my time. Putting petty and inappropriate warnings on my talk page does not lead to the improvement of this encylopedia. I should not have to put up with childish behaviour such as this, do you have a bone to pick, honestly?
Lecturing me on WP:CIVIL when I have read said policy, and have contributed here for over a year is just a joke. You should stop wasting time and start contributing to the encylopedia. michael talk 05:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It is only because I see you have contributed here pretty much and is an active contributor that I bothered to remind you of WP:CIVIL. The removal of warnings is completely unacceptable when they are fully justified. Considering your thousands of contributions, I am quite surprised you failed to keep a cool manner and started offensive and baseless accusations head-on. Being an active contributor does not mean you are above the rules - see User:Ghirlandajo's case, for example.
The warnings are far from "petty" and "inappropriate" - and if they are so, as I said, please rebute them, not remove them. Your edit summary, "rmv crap", etc., is far from being civil. However, you have decided that everyone else is an idiot and you are above rules because you have been here "for over a year", and removed the warning over 5 times repeatedly, which made the matter much worse. I would suggest you to cool off a bit - this dispute has no reason to go on.Aranherunar 05:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
As a friendly reminder, the spelling is "encyclopedia" (though soem prefer "encyclopaedia". I would have thought you could spend some time learning to spell the word when you have been here for "over a year". Aranherunar 06:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
What is your justification? "rmv crap" as an edit summary in an edit that removes an illegitimate warning that you were apparently going to remove anyway? Wouldn't it be best to appreciate that the user has simply removed the text for you and let it be? All you're doing is playing tit-for-tat. A endless shit-slinging match goes nowhere. Spend your time contributing to Wikipedia instead. michael talk 06:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was going to remove that NPA warning, which I deemed unnecessary until then. However, an abusive edit summary, under any circumstances, no matter you are right or not, is completely unacceptable. I would have thought you had more sense than that. Your removal of warnings is completely childish. Rather than telling me to spend my time contributing to Wikipedia, why don't you? The removal of warnings is completely unnecessary. They do not in any way hinder your ability to contribute. Instead, you have decided to start an edit war on the warnings. This is completely immature, forgive my frankness, and I would suggest you to stop it right away before an admin has to come to solve this dispute which isn't needed at all. Best regards. Aranherunar 06:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
As a note for this unnecessary discussion, I have absolutely nothing against you, or your edits, except that you have failed to get over this really minor discussion. This doesn't seem to be the first time you had a major misunderstanding and started being incivil. I completely admire your contributions and work on many articles, leading them up to FA - but this behavior, removing warnings on your own user talk page over 10 times, is very, very pointless, immature and unacceptable. Aranherunar 06:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I've contacted an Administrator. Out of interest, what would you do if I put a warning on your talk page? I could quite as easily be offended by your behaviour. michael talk 06:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but I have not violated the rules. If you put it there I would simply state it clear that I believe I do not deserve it - simple and clear. Why bother? See my archive for an example. Aranherunar 06:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I could say exactly the same thing. You've violated WP:TROLL, in my eyes. I'm going to apologise if such a remark ("rmv crap" - which was not targeted directly at you) offended you, and request that you remove the warning from my talk page. How's that? michael talk 06:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
As a note, the original NPA warning, which I deemed unneccessary, has been removed. My warning is now of abusive edit summary, not being incivil, and of removing warning from your talk pages. I noticed you said you found the warnings to be an insult - and I would have to say I find the comment "silly", "crap" etc. to be insulting as well.
The above comment is written before I saw user Beneaththelandslide's reply.
Re: Yes, you can say absolutely the same thing, you can say you believe you did not violate the rules, whatever, but removing the warnings is frowned upon. You should leave the warning there along with your reply to it, and when people wants to check your past warnings, they will see that and they will see your reply. They can come to a conclusion themselves. Instead, you have chosen to remove the warning over ten times without a particular reason except "rmv rubbish", "rmv crap", etc. I find your behavior very immature for an active contributor like you, but anyhow I will remove the warnings after reconsideration. I believe you have enough sense and experience to understand the policies, and, after all, it's only a misunderstanding. Again, you might not take in this suggestion, but please try to be civil in your discussions from now on. Aranherunar 07:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Aranherunar. Don't get too strung up about this. It's generally considered rather robotic and impersonal to stick a templated warning on the page of another user who is established and trying to contibute in good faith. From my personal experience it seems to irritate people a lot more than having an exchange of words, even when the words may be harsher. People seem to routinely delete robot statements but seem to keep rather pointed comments which are not templated. In any case, the best way is just to have two minutes to leave them a personal note (I do this even for guys who make religiously inflammatory comments and real personal attacks like calling each other "terrorist"). As for Beneaththelandslide, he holds himself to high article standards and doesn't mind getting as good as he gets, so dont' worry if he says "rv bad edit" or "rv badly phrased" - he is a good guy, and there is a difference between commenting on the quality of the edits and commenting on the editor themselves, although if heavy language were used, it would be concerning. As for the issue with cj, it was probably the caps, which may intimidate a few people. And by the way, the reason Ghirlandajo is in trouble is because there isn't a group of admins who share the same POV that he does. Some admins who have the right connections more or less just rain down whatever they like....Blnguyen | rant-line 07:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe the matter is solved already, but anyway there's a point I have to say. I did not exactly "stick a templated warning" - see the actual "warning". It was a note with a subst. of a warning message which I put there to sum up my previous paragraph. The second warning subst. is added after the user reverted my edit, and I have also left a personal note before that. I apologize if this seems to offend him, but I also find the words "silly", "nonsensical" etc. quite offensive when I had made thousands of edits in Wikipedia and my edits have seldom been deemed unnecessary or false, and definitely not "silly". Thanks.Aranherunar 07:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

End of discussion

Japanese language classification again

I have attempted to answer your concerns about Japanese language classification by rewriting the openings of each section to clarify in each case that what follows is a description of a theory, not a statement of fact. I've removed the cleanup tag, since I hope I've done enough to solve the problem, but could you perhaps take a look and see if you agree?

Please let me know if you think anything remains which might be confusing or POV, and do of course put the cleanup tag back if you think it still needs work. — Haeleth Talk 13:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

End of discussion

Reply

People living in Mongolia, Korea, Russia don't consider themselves as minorities of China. They are not even Chinese citizens. Edipedia 18:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Pay attention. The article is talking the present time. The term "Han Chinese" is used to distinguish the majority from the various minorities... Edipedia 14:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody attacked you. Who are you warning and for what?Edipedia 16:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Replied. And here's a sandbox provided in case you can't find one.

End of discussion

User:Jadger

please show me where I have made a personal attack, so I may know where I have crossed the line, as I do not believe I have.

If you are refering to the Talk:Extermination through labour, that is not a personal attack, if you will notice, I have cited on User:Halibutt's talk page where he has made unreferenced POVed statements in an article. And when I removed them, he reverted my work then stated that in order to remove unreferenced conjecture: "If that is false - please be so kind as to provide some source to state clearly that..." Talk:German 17th Infantry Division. By that reasoning, anyone can post anything they want and not have to cite it (against wikipedia's policy of "no original research").

So, since it cannot seriously be the above case, please state where I have personally attacked someone.

If anyone should be blocked for Personal Attacks, it is Halibutt, claiming foul and attacking my character throughout wikipedia, using the tu quoque fallacy continuosly, rather than maturely discussing the matter he contines to attack me, claiming my only contributions are edit wars.

for instance, here on the Polish September Campaign, comments section where he states, "Jadger, thanks for changing yet another discussion into your I don't like Halibutt campaign." or perhaps this, also on the same talk page: "Don't get me wrong, Jadger, but I have yet to see you actually write any article on the matter, while most of your edits are either related to removal of some facts you're uncomfortable with (German WWII war crimes) or names switching (as is the case here). Why not focus on something more constructive?"

now, which is a personal attack, citing where a person has made an error, or claiming they are trying to suppress claims of atrocities? I think the latter, as you probably do as well.

--Jadger 03:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

that was not an insult, if you will note, I was giving an example of the fallacy called "begging the question", to show that his attack upon me was not only unjustified, but also a personal attack, here it is:User_talk:Jadger#Extermination_through_labour"Then perhaps you could tell me why do you believe black people should be exterminated? //Halibutt 12:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)"

I was not attacking Halibutt, just showing that his personal attack upon me was a logical fallacy and that there are multiple forms of the same thing used by children in elementary school.

I notice you have only warned me, perhaps you should warn Halibutt as well, since he is the one that was not giving examples of logical fallacies, but actually insulting me.

--Jadger 16:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

then why have I been the only one warned? when I have obviously taken offence to his slander against me. Especially since you have obviously taken my remark in question out of context, and not even quoted the full sentence, but only parts. One can do that for anyone and make them sound as personal attacks, for instance someone can say "I support the recent government initiatives to stop child molesting" and another person can pretend that they said "I support.... child molesting", much like you have done here, you have taken it totally out of context.

you said:The user you are arguing with being uncivil does not justify you being uncivil can you clarify that please, it reads as if Halibutt has special privileges and shouldn't be questioned for his revert wars or personal attacks upon others.

you said: Please keep cool and try to make the discussion on-topic - i.e., about improving Wikipedia, not about the social life of a person so how does Halibutt's statement "Then perhaps you could tell me why do you believe black people should be exterminated?" improve wikipedia? and why does he get off scott free? if you notice, the personal attacks started from him well before the statements in question.

--Jadger 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

what mistake? you mean instead of trying to get the discussion back on track I should simply cry foul before he has a chance to? How is mine a personal attack, when I said "this is an example of the logical fallacy...." before the statement in question, while he so blatantly never did such a thing. Not to mention it is not how one means something, but how it is taken to mean that is important, see for instance criminal harassment

I did indeed try to get discussion back on track, as you will notice, I was the one that said: "I would appreciate it if you would be civil, or else I will not continue this discussion." on Hallibutt's userpage.

It takes two to tango as they say, and only punishing one side makes the other think he has free will. you may not think it is punishment to warn someone, but on wikipedia it is like a criminal record, where people like Halibutt will bring it up in a discussion by using a tu quoque fallacy, thus taking the topic off track, I have seen him do it before, on Talk:Polish September Campaign for one.

--Jadger 19:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

how is that a "perfectly proper and acceptable question"? I have never spoken about black people to Halibutt, or on the wiki for that matter(check my contribs), how does that question ask me to explain my action? the statement you say you warned me about is exactly the same, but it seems now you meant a totally different statement, you said you warned me about my statement in response to his statement about black people.

you said: "What I see in this case is that you posted a personal remark that sounded offensive to Halibutt, he kindly asked you to remove it and argued that it is offensive and slanderous to him," Now, can you tell me how that is any different from the current situation? I have obviously found his remark offensive, and have asked him to apologise to me, which he has not.

perhaps you should actually read the whole discussion rather then only the parts Halibutt has told you about, it started long before, he was the one that began the incivility long before on talk pages of German 17th Infantry Division, Polish September Campaign and many others. I do not blame him for becoming incivil, he had firmly lost a debate and so could do nothing else except perhaps admit defeat. My only fault and regret was allowing him to pull me down that moral slope with him.

--Jadger 01:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not arguing my statements were not personal attacks, I asked for you to point out which ones you believed are personal attacks, then when you showed me, I pointed out that Halibutt had made that personal attack first, and I was simply replying in kind. I am not arguing that I shouldn't have been warned, I'm arguing that Halibutt should also be warned, for not only antagonizing me but also for making personal attacks, it takes two to tango as they say.

--Jadger 01:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

End of discussion

Han Chinese and User:Edipedia

Hi there, I've reverted and placed a topic in the discussion. I've had run-ins with this user before. He/She appears to be unfamiliar with basic procedures about discussing contested changes. Possibly a relatively new user? Anyway, hopefully we can get some interesting discussion there. --Sumple (Talk) 00:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, he's blanked his talk page =S Someone's upset. --Sumple (Talk) 00:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

End of discussion

RE: Oops

Ah, I completely understand. I thought something was a bit amiss after looking at your contribution history. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 08:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC) End of discussion

OrangeRules

Glad you noticed the nowiki too. Senseless vandalism sucks.StvnLunsford 15:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC) End of discussion

DYK

Updated DYK query On 23 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article flanking maneuver, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

End of discussion

Re:Maneuver vs Manoeuvre on Flanking maneuver

I'm not sure what you mean by removing the note that it is called manoeuvre in Commonwealth English, and then leave a reference to the Manual of Style in the edit summary. The MoS advises people which spelling to use according to what the article is about. Since the article refers to something common anywhere, what's wrong with putting a simple alternative spelling beside it? (see elevator, tap (valve), maneuver etc. for more examples) I've no problem with the American spelling being dominant in the article, but surely there's no harm with just saying what the spelling is outside of North America? You've made a nice article, though, by the way. -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 19:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the "other countries" was originally added by another editor to refer to Ireland which isn't in the Commonwealth - I suppose it was a bit confusing. However, the MoS has nothing to say about writing an alternative spelling, which was what I was trying to point out earlier. As for the "two word" rule, what about shopping mall? But you're right: the redirect's probably enough. -- THE GREAT GAVINI {T|C|#} 06:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

End of discussion

Image:Hitler_Posing_Official_Colour_Picture.jpg

I found this passage which confirms that the image is still copyrighted (the photo is <70 years). The reason given by the uploader is false [2]. I don't know if I should tag it as speedy delete again or not. Can you handle the rest because you know much more than me about image copyrights? Thanks! Aran|heru|nar 12:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless it meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion, which I don't think it does, please do not tag it for speedy deletion. It will be deleted in two weeks' time unless it can be confirmed that the image is usable. You can add further discussion to the listing at WP:PUI. Stifle (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

End of discussion

Deville's RfA

Hello, Aranherunar, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA. I'm glad I met your standards. The final tally was 72/1/0, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I'll be tentative with the new buttons for a while, and certainly welcome any and all feedback on how I might be able to use them to help the project. All the best, and thanks again! — Deville (Talk) 03:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

End of discussion

DYK

Updated DYK query On 27 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Poliphilo, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

End of discussion

Thanks

Thanks for removing the illegitimate warning left by User:Edipedia at my Talk page. Is there anything we can do about his behaviour? --- Hong Qi Gong 15:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is the right place, but I reported him anyway on the Incidents board - [3]. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

End of discussion

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/a/User_talk%7EAranherunar_Archive_2_bfde.html"