User talk:Joffeloff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Joffeloff, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  TomStar81 21:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Stridsbat90h.jpg

Please see the image description page.

[edit] Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Skinnyweed 15:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask the same question. What's the point of adding that to people's user pages without saying what article you're referring to? Joffeloff 15:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This one. Because of the sheer amount of edit summary tags I'm adding, adding any more information would take lots more time. Skinnyweed 15:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"sheer amount", do wonder why you are adding so very many. Took a look and you have added a LOT of these tags to peoples' talk pages. Why?! It is not essential compulsary policy that people have to follow, merely a "good idea". So sometimes I'll do that, and sometimes I won't... Mathmo 11:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe you would be interested in

This, this, this, and this. It's just a short listing of the hoops that are having to be jumped though for Operational Names in articles. Regards, ← ΣcoPhreek _{Is Useless}^Nostalgia→ 17:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between using the operation names as article names and mentioning that this is what the U.S. called the operations. Joffeloff 17:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree. However, the user starting all this is also removing them from articles, stating that they are propaganda. They are justifying that based on the moving of Articles from the operational name to the Non-operational name. ← ΣcoPhreek _{Is Useless}^Nostalgia→ 17:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen atleast one instance where the operational name was used for the article treating the involvement of the party using the operational name, and an article named 'war/conflict/etc in Wherever' as an umbrella article for the involvement of all sides. Isn't that perfectly neutral and good? I don't see the big deal. Joffeloff 17:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

One would think it was, but just for an example in the article we started in [1] this is going on in dozens of articles by the same person, and no one is willing to stop them (there is even an admin supporting), we do have an ArbCom case going but I'm not sure what will happen to that. ← ΣcoPhreek _{Is Useless}^Nostalgia→ 17:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stateless people

I see you have readded [2] to Basque people the Category:Stateless people. I was amazed at it the first time too. Why do basque people fall into the stateless people? They do have a legal nationality: they're Spanish. They don't form an state, as Spain is not a federal country, but they are a Autonomous community. Can you explain? Platonides 21:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

They do not have their own nation state even though they belong to a federal state. In this way various ethnic groups like the native americans, native australians and new zealanders can be added to that category aswell.

I'm not suggesting that they're being 'oppressed' or any BS like that, but you can't say that they don't have their own nation state of a Basque character. --Joffeloff 21:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the category originally pertained to stateless individuals but has since been used very often to describe groups who don't have their own nation-state. I understand the confusion, because there is a current debate over what that category should represent. --Joffeloff 21:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iran Iraq War

I don't see what is it that you are mad about, i reverted CJK's several edits, i am sorry if i accidently reverted your edit among them. --Spahbod ☼ 19:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

If an article overly focuses on minor issues from weak sources, that is POV and should be removed. Just wanted to let you know since you were confused on the issue. 75.3.52.176 03:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)