User talk:Thryduulf/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Offensive usernames

You noted your support for blocking two offensive usernames at RfC; do we have to wait for further consensus to do so, or can they be blocked? If they can be blocked, would you mind to do it? I'm about six days away (hopefully) from getting the sacred mop; feel free to vote for me! (Shamless plug.) -- Essjay · Talk 11:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's probably best; I don't want you to make a decision on a block without being sure. When in doubt, wait it out. Way to be the cool head; keep up the good work! -- Essjay · Talk 12:47, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your page protection

Have worked hard to add meaningful content to the Ted Kenendy page. The group who have been taking down my info and links will not reason. The linked site, fatboy.cc happens to provide photos and text not found on any other websites. The photos of Pam Kelley are on no other pages. The letter about Joan Kennedy on the home page is also no where else. Just because the other guys who edit the page happen to love Ted Kennedy does not give them the right to color the page with their views. The site fatboy.cc is not an attack site, there is no profanity or threats there, in fact it is hosted by a Boston talk show host and Boston Herald writer, Howie Carr. Even if there is political satire on fatboy.cc, it is on topic and not obscene. Thanks for your help.


[edit] Thankyou for your helpful info

Thankyou very much for your useful information on my attempt to make the article ÉFF. However I did not fully understand it as I am new to Wikipedia. Please can you clarify what you mean and put the answer at User talk:195.188.51.4

[edit] British and Irish current events

I note you voted keep in the above page's VfD, and I was wondering if you'd consider helping to keep it updated. Thanks for your time, Steve block 21:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Srebrenica massacre

Hi Thryduulf. You protected the Srebrenica article for editing. I think that some key background data about it didn't mentioned. That UN commander of Bosnia and Hercegovina claim that it was the revenge for the previous messacre against Serbs in this area. ICTY transcript : http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/040212ED.htm .

0 Q. General, your statement details attacks by Naser Oric,

11 particularly the Orthodox Christmas Eve attack. Did there come a time

12 when you had a conversation with Naser Oric with which -- during which you

13 confronted him with respect to what his policy was or what he did respect

14 to the prisoners that he obtained during his operations?

15 A. I met Naser Oric much later, in March, when I intervened directly

16 on the ground. The actions that you are referring to were one of the

17 reasons for the deterioration of the situation in the area, especially in

18 the month of January.

19 Naser Oric engaged in attacks during Orthodox holidays and

20 destroyed villages, massacring all the inhabitants. This created a degree

21 of hatred that was quite extraordinary in the region, and this prompted

22 the region of Bratunac in particular - that is the entire Serb population

23 - to rebel against the very idea that through humanitarian aid one might

24 help the population that was present there.

25 Q. General --

Page 31966

1 A. Naser Oric, and I repeat, I met him only in March.

2 Q. If I could ask you, what if anything did Mr. Oric himself say to

3 you with respect to what he had been doing with prisoners during this time

4 period?

5 A. I think you will find this in other testimony, not just mine.

6 Naser Oric was a warlord who reigned by terror in his area and over the

7 population itself. I think that he realised that those were the rules of

8 this horrific war, that he could not allow himself to take prisoners.

9 According to my recollection, he didn't even look for an excuse. It was

10 simply a statement: One can't be bothered with prisoners.

I think that some of these should be cite in the Srebrenica_massacre article. --Oldadamml 07:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


I ask you to add NPOV dispute to the Srebrenica_massacre article. This can be done within the wikipedia protected page policy. --Oldadamml 08:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to thank you for protecting the article following my request. I hope we can come to an agreement on the talk page now. By the way, adding the NPOV dispute tag was probably a good move. The article is a mess following the constant edit warring. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I would ask you to visit the Srebrenica discussion page and make a determination if the imposed NPOV tag should be removed. In a absurdly lenghty conversation there wasn't a single usefull fact brought fourth that would either credibly justify NPOV tag nor was there a specific change suggested which would comply with the Wikipedia's neutral position on this matter. The article was already written with respect to the alternate views of the massacre. The transcript placed above (which supposedly justified NPOV tag) was only used to justify pushing of partisan issues. As the article currently reads it is fair and balanced while the NPOV tag serves to damage the credibility of Wikipedia. I thank you for your actions --Dado 19:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for doing the administrational type duties re: the Vancouver Skybridge article/picture. Prudish indeed! Ha! If he'd only have looked at my edit history... Thanks again for doing your duties with the admin mop. Dismas 06:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double standards

Just curious, it's ok for SPUI to call people Fucking idiots but not the other way around?

Also, SPUI has asked people not to revert.

Jennet 08:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

(It wasn't an edit summary where he called administrators Fucking Idiots). Otherwise, your reply sounds like a rationalization to me.
I see you've reverted me but left the above noted personal attack, your actions speak for themselves. Jennet 08:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Wow, you really are the king of rationalizations. Perhaps your mind is so open that your brain has fallen out?

[edit] Locking NPOV Dispute Tags

Thank you for your help in resolving the edit war in al-Qaeda. I wish that pages would never have to be locked, but where there is an obvious and specific NPOV dispute and editors keep taking off the NPOV dispute tag, what else can be done? Would you please take a look at terrorism to see if you think the same action needs to be taken there?

The way Smyth ignores any reference to the classic, singular definition of terrorism in favor of the subjective and confusing rhetorical description he has introduced, is IMO a definite NPOV dispute. Any attempt to suggest a compromise is subverted, and every time an NPOV dispute tag is added, Smyth erases it. I believe a dual-definition compromise can be worked out. I regretfully request that the article be locked with an NPOV tag until a new article is agreed upon for the purpose of motivating compromise. Thank you for your consideration. --Zephram Stark 15:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the info you left on my page. You are one of the people who keep this repository honest. --Zephram Stark 18:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Could you please revisit the discussion page and read the whole thing. There is actually only one who wants that tag to be there, and a whole lot of people who want it removed. Please unlock the page. TH 16:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
There are several of us working on a settlement of the neutrality dispute, TH. I'm sure we would all appreciate your input. --Zephram Stark 21:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected template

Sorry for adding the {{protected}} template to articles that are not actually protected. I thought I could protect them myself by adding it. As you know by know, I asked for protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. By the way, thanks a lot for protecting the pages I asked protection for. I really appreciate it. Copperchair 00:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas

It was a mistake; I'd meant to copy-edit the new material (which was dreadful; for example, years were given in three different ways: !980, i980, and l980), but didn't have time. I seem to have rolled it back, when I actually meant to edit the new version. I don't know how it happened, but I've now replaced and copy-edited the new material. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Licences and licensing

Hi Thryduulf,

Although English is not my mother tongue, I like it very much, with a strong preference for British spellings and pronunciation, but I still feel compelled to point out that while "licence" (noun) is spelt (:o)) without an "s", "license" (verb) is not, and therefore there is no such thing as "licencing".

KissL 11:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] blocked

ok, no problem--Witkacy 07:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Wolverine Edit War

Hi, Thryduulf. Sorry to bother you, but since Steve Block mentioned you on SoM's Talk page, I'd like to ask you to sound off on the Wolverine issue. In addition to the content dispute (which others refer to as "trolling" or "vandalism"), there is a clearly uncivil edge to the exchanges between myself and my opponents, particularly ScifiterX, and unfortunately, Steve Block. While I take responsibility for violating the 3R rule (I obviously did not familiarize myself with it as much as I should have), if you look at the Talk pages for myself, ScifiterX, and the others, you see a series of insults, lies, and false accusations leveled at me, not to mention behavior on their part that they actually accuse me of. They have made very little effort to resolve this in a civil manner, and reading these discussion pages should illustrate this. In the newest development, user Netoholic has stated, quite politely, on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nightscream page, that he doesn't see a problem with my additions, that editing would be preferable to blanket removal or edit wars, that the initiators of the RFC should reevaluate whether they've been accomodating, and opined that he finds info on super powers more interesting than storyline info. Whereas ScifiterX challenged me on the basis that he had friends agreeing with him, and I had no one "backing me up," now someone has come to agree with me at least partially, and in response, Steve Block has posted on SoM's page to say, "Some pillock is alleging we're in the wrong now." Since a pillock is a stupid or unintelligent person, may I ask why this name-calling is necessary on Steve's part? This is an indicator of the type of behavior on Steve's, SoM's, and ScifiterX's part that I've been dealing with. In addition to the content dispute, they are violating Wikipedia's rules regarding civility (and I wonder if doing so is as actionable as say, the 3R rule). I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks. Nightscream 7.20.05. 3:55am EST

[edit] Wolverine (comics)

Nightscream's comments above are pretty correct, I'm ashamed to say. There is definitely an edit war going on at Wolverine (comics), but I'm no longer convinced of who is to blame. And I no longer want to be involved, this needs a better person than me to sort it out. But the page needs protection and the issue needs to be solved. Nightscream is on one side and the other editors are on the other, and in trying to walk the middle I veered far too close to one side over the other. Steve block talk 08:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Steve, the fact that you are honest enough to admit what you have above is precisely why we need to remain in this matter, lest the only ones doing the talking will be ScifiterX and his supporters, who certainly appear less likely to display the type of objectivity and honesty needed to admit when they might be wrong. Me, I admit that I should've familiarized myself with rules like the 3R rule more closely, so there's plenty of mea culpa to go around. Your continued presence in the matter would be appreciated. :-) Nightscream 7.20.05. 10:35am EST

[edit] Thanks

The mop is mine!
Enlarge
The mop is mine!

Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay · Talk 15:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alix of Hesse (maybe)

Just to say that, when I proposed moving the article back to Alix of Hesse, I genuinely did think it had been at that title previously. Deb 22:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Garcia, again

Mike Garcia has been acting up again, this time on System of a Down, only a little while after your block. He refuses to cite a source for his information, nor can he justify it being there. 66.36.141.203 01:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Are you a administrator? If you are, tell me cause I need help. Albanau 21:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am an administrator.
Good! Can you ban user Theathenae and Chronographos in 24 hours for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks. They have provocated me and tried to drag my name through the mud. They have abused me really hard by calling me an Albanian terrorist sympathiser., see talk page. Can you please Remove personal attacks cause User Theatheane restore it back again I erase it, see [[1]]. This should be a leason for them. Many thanks in advance! --Albanau 21:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Chronographos was not the only one repeatedly engaging in personal attacks, user Theathenae also and it was he who restored the personal attacks. Albanau 22:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to intervene, but in case you haven't noticed, user Albanau keeps vandalising articles by editing them according to his personal nationalist convictions. When during a debate he has nothing to reply with, he instantly accuses people for having supposedly offended him or violating 3RR in order to get them blocked and have his way with the article. In that specific article we're 3 or 4 people (familiar with the subject) trying to convince him in Talk how and why he's wrong and he keeps reverting the page over and over again. He probably has already complained to another 10 admins, who have probably ignored him because they're familiar with his case. He always prefers to revert before discuss, and when other people revert it back to NPOV he throws false accusations about 3RR etc. I know this by personal experience because he has previously accused me for doing things that I never did, just because he couldn't take the truth on certain matters. Furthermore if you notice his edit history is all about nationalist edits on Albania-related articles, no real contributions whatsoever. In that respect, I find it unfair and naive to give such an editor support without prior examination of the situation. Miskin 00:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for supporting me

Hello, just a quick note to express my gratitude for your support of my RfA. I'm sure I'll become a familiar face on places like the Administrator's Noticeboard and Requests for Adminship, as well as the murkier parts of my new job. "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (Luke 12:48, NIV) Never was a truer word spoken. I feel empowered, yes, but not in the "oooh cool delete button!" way I was kind of expecting. Already I feel the weight of the responsibility I have now been entrusted with, a weight that will no doubt reduce given time. Thank you for believing in me. :) GarrettTalk 10:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting

It is generally a good idea, when considering whether or not to revert in the middle of a vigorous discussion, to comment before doing so, and then waiting for response before proceeding. Especially if you're going to remind others to follow policy and best practice whilst doing so.

James F. (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] yo

I would like to be able to edit al qaeda, and not controversially. what's the status? I'mma putta jihad on you if you don't do the right thing. Kzzl 03:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] dude

this contorversy is 8 days old now? do you know how many unnecessary boring details you gave me in your answer? I'm just a regular person who wants to edit public info on one of the most mysterious entities who'v ever confronted an immensly powerful nation in the modern age. I don't care what infidel admins can do while it's still locked. I don't care what the controversies are. It smacks of censorship, limiting the ability of many to weigh in. I know that wikipedia needs to be managed by someone, but this wiki is pretty f'n important, so there needs to be an f'n vote on something to get things flowing again. 8 days is a long ass time. Kzzl 06:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protection on Hue article

Are you considering dropping the protection on the article Massacre at Hue? Discussion has died down considerably. Thanks TDC 14:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I cannot believe you are allowing this anon user to get away with this bull, considering he has done this on many other articles as well. TDC 17:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Thryduulf. I am one of the recent editors of the Massacre at Hue article you protected from revert wars and vandalism. After reviewing User:TDC's recent edit history, I have a few very brief questions for you:
  • Can you take a look at the Discussion Page and give me your opinion on whether "discussion has died down" or not?
  • Can you verify for us if you Page Protect an article version preferred by you, or do you do as most Admins do and protect the disputed page as you find it, regardless of your personal point of view?
  • Can you verify whether you consider it acceptable Wiki-practice to come to your User Talk page and stealthily delete someone else's comments addressed to you, such as was done here?
Thanks for your time. I'll be watching here on your discussion page for your responses, as well as further vandalism (in my opinion). 209.86.1.200 20:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
answered on the article talk page. Thryduulf 21:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This is absolutely ludicrous! 15Rv's in one day, a pattern of similar behavior in several other articles and you take this anon seriously? Good gravy! TDC 21:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

So let me get this strait, you are threatening to take sanctions against me because I called the anon a liar (which he/she clearly is), and yet there exists no mechanism to sanction the anon for documented violations across several articles including the current dispute on Hue? How is that either right or fair? I realize that you do not want to be caught in the middle of this dispute, but unfortunately you have, and some input as to its resolution would be appreciated. TDC 16:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

How in God's name am I supposed to report this user? I have reported them on the 3RR page, and issues have been reported Dispute resolution process with absolutely nothing to show for it. TDC 17:09, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Recent exerpts from TDC's Talk page, without digging into archived material:
  • You have been blocked for violating Wikipedia:Three revert rule on Pablo Neruda. The block is for 48 hours because you have been repeatedly blocked for previously violating this rule. - Gamaliel 18:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi TDC, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Fidel Castro and have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. - SlimVirgin 08:54, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • You have been blocked for 48 hours for persisting in your deliberately provocative and disrupting behaviour... - Rama 8 July 2005 08:02 (UTC)
  • I am sad to see that on your return of the block mentionned above, you have immediately reverted Pablo Neruda ... In accordance to the above statement, you are now block for four days. - Rama 16:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
And the list goes on, while you scream about "documented violations across several articles." There appear to be numerous communiques about personal attacks and disruptive behavior as well. Recently on the WP:RFPP, you stated there was but one Anon contributor to the Hue article, and called me a liar when I disagreed with your statement. You have since acknowledged there are indeed more than one, but not before you and I filled half a page with petty point & counterpoint garbage. I've made mistakes, but I don't lie. I've been warned twice, but never blocked. I broke the 3RR on the Massacre at Hue article (although it was to revert vandalism), and admitted as much in my request to have it temporarily protected.
TDC, I'm appealing to you one more time: forget the personal attacks, forget secretly deleting my posts to admins, quit expending so much effort trying to torment or smear opposing editors, etc. Focus on the articles. You and I aren't as divergent on this Hue article as you seem to believe. While I am pressing for balanced coverage of opposing views in the article, I want to make sure it's not lost on the reader that an atrocity did occur. Brutality and inhumanity was inflicted, and that needs to be expressed in the article -- but not to the exclusion of other relevant facts. If we disagree on statistics, or motivations, etc., then fine, we can put them both in along with their respective sources and let the readers conclude for themselves. This shouldn't be this difficult. 165.247.219.253 18:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This talk page is not the place for rants or evidence about the behaviour and actions of other users, nor is it a place for personal attacks or interpersonal disputes. Please start an rfc if you have evidence; if you don't please shut up. I will remove all further comments. You have been warned. Thryduulf 21:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: The Flowers of Romance

Hello, I saw the comments you left at Village Pump. I didn't know if you were still watching but I've posted a response. I've been watching this whole thing transpire over the past few months. FWIW. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] bak dirk dirk Allah. sherpa sherpa. mohommed jihad.

I hereby put a jeéhad on you. sincerely, Kzzl 18:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theathenae/Albanau

Yesterday around the same time you blocked those two for 24 hours for breaking the 3RR ("There is a clear violation of the 3RR by user:Theathenae at Arvanitic language, for which I have blocked him for 24 hours. He doesn't appear to have broken the 3RR at Arvanites as he hasn't reverted to any one version or phrase more than 3 times that I can see, but this wasn't easy to judge. user:Albanau has however broken the 3RR at Arvanites (diffs on his talk page), for which I have blocked him for 24 hours. Thryduulf 14:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)"). Albanau's block expired at least two hours ago, yet Theathenae tells me in his talk page that he is still blocked. Could you please see to it that all is as it's supposed to be? Thanks. Chronographos 16:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee appointments.png

elements cross-posted

I intend to do so just as soon as I can get my iBook replaced (bloody logic boards). Thanks for the reminder, though.
James F. (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aquafag

If you continue to vandalize MY TALK PAGE you will be blocked from living on the Earth. WAM!

Thank you --Boycottthecaf 23:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] whose dispute?

You enjoy ill-tempered indignant messages on your talk page? whoa. perhaps wikipedia could further my goals and get this dispute out of it's system. You realize that being involved in disputes is voluntary right? Try telling that to Ariel Sharon, yameen?? Kzzl 03:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ok, so seriously

can you give me a little overview on the big problem with the al qaeda? what do you personally think? How does one wade through a giant morass of documented edit wars and heaping amounts of discussion over large mounds of points of view that may or may not be neutral? I imagine after people fight about it for a while it won't really be neutral, it'll just be somewhere in between what some people want and what some other people want and someday after it's unfrozen more people will mess with it. I guess you just gotta give it a controversial tag and see what happens on the general anti-US front and hope for a cool head here or there to chill the hot heads out, a? it's sticky business, I guess. Damn it. See, now I'm thinking about what the contorvesy could be. Ya see though, I know better than to fight about anything right now. Say you wanted to put something in an article that a lotta people considered POV. if you couldn't get it in there in some form originally, why would it work after there's been a big to do about it? People don't need wikipedia to make thier minds about al qaeda. bakka lakka.Kzzl 04:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sasquatch's RfA

Thanks for your support on my RfA! I look forward to helping with page protection issues further (as I can actually do that now that I am an admin, although I am still hesitant to use it). Sasquatch′↔T↔C 04:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1 penny vs 2 cents

In case you don't see my response:

from your user page: Why is it that whenever you give someone a penny for their thoughts, they end up giving you their two cents? Sounds like a scam if I've ever heard one. Either that or a "Get-Rich Slow" program.
At current exchange rates it is a very-very-very slow way to get rich. As of 2005.07.28 10:49:43 UTC the mid market rates are £0.01 (GBP) = $0.0174459 (USD) so 2 US cents are worth more than 1 British penny. I don't know how this translates to purchasing power though. Thryduulf 10:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
True, but if you just use American money, you double your money everytime. But that is still a "Get-Rich Really Slow" program. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 12:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. regions

I don't dispute your protection, that's in order, but please review Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. regions#Map series, the I do not believe the description given to you is entirely accurate. Thanks. -JCarriker 17:00, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Upper Midwest protection

Why did you protect Upper Midwest? There was a very small edit war, it looks like, but the IP had stopped hours before you protected. There's also no discussion on its talk page, nor did you explain the protection there. kmccoy (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I responded on the project page you mentioned, I don't think the protection is really warranted here. I think the two editors should just work it out between themselves on the project talk page. If it means occasional reverting on the articles, that's less harmful to the project than protecting so many articles from editing by anyone else. If someone reverts more than three times, then there are ways of dealing with that person. kmccoy (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Please reprotect Western United States it was already protected because of a content dispute. Thanks. -JCarriker 18:49, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Al Qaeda page protection

Hi Thryduulf. A visitor on my talk page asked me to look into the Al Qaeda page protection. Apparently you protected it after a war over whether or not it should have a NPOV tag. Is that correct? If so, how long do you plan to keep it protected? It's been 10 days now, I believe. Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it was you. :-) Page protection is generally considered a bad thing in Wikipedia; a 10 day page protection over a NPOV tag seems excessive to me, and against the spirit of the project. Jayjg (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand, and would agree that the negative of edit-warring outweighs the negative of page protection for a brief period - even up to a week. But beyond that, the weighting tips the other way, especially over something like a NPOV tag. Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Thryduulf, I also got a request for unprotection, so I unlocked it and left a note on the talk page about the use of the NPOV tag, but if the reverting starts up again, I'll re-lock, as you're familiar with the situation and I'm not. Hope that's okay with you. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:04, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vladimir Lenin page protection

Hi. Before you protected Vladimir Lenin, the NPOV tag was mistakenly put at the very top of the article, while the NPOV dispute is actually limited to a single section of it (Vladimir Lenin#Human rights violations). So, could you remove the overall NPOV tag and place a section-NPOV tag at the beginning of "Human rights violations"? Thanks. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hammersmith tube station (Piccadilly & District Line)

Thanks for tidying up after my page split on that side; I was concentrating on sorting the Hammersmith & City line first so was a nice surprise to find the other half had been "caught" --Vamp:Willow 16:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] kmccoy's RFA

Hi! I noticed from your vote on my RFA that you seemed to expect a response. I wasn't really planning on responding to negative comments or criticisms (or positive ones, for that matter) unless they were a direct question, mostly because I feel that I shouldn't be campaigning for administrator access. Also, one of the sayings in my profession is "just take the note", meaning if you get a 'note' (which is when the stage manager tells you you are doing something wrong), just take the note and fix the issue -- don't argue the point. So, if you'd like a response, I'll be happy to do so, but please let me know if that's the case. Thanks.  :) kmccoy (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandra Fyodorovna

Could you kindly move the article which now suddenly is at Alexandra Fyodorovna (Alix of Hesse) back to Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse. The vote is ongoing, discussions ongoing, vote was extendeed (see RM page), and now suddenly it was moved to a place which was very recently proposed, had got also opposition, and has not yet got any positive vote in voting. There are other alternatives which has got many votes. The mover was an admin who himself was involved in proposals and discussions. Apparently wanted now to promote own proposal. However, that simpky is not the way such things are done in WP. Arrigo 09:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Thanks for the warning, but if you've seen all the stuff outpoured on that talk page, not to mention at User talk:217.140.193.123, I don't think I'd be the one you'd be ticking off. Deb 09:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC) (Sorry, I accidentally posted this on your user page first off.)

[edit] link to anchor on help page

Hi - Thanks for updating Help:Editing#Links.2C_URLs. I clearly should have done it in the moment, but got distracted. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:15, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. regions

Please see my new post and new base map, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. regions. Thanks. (BTW you didn't unprotect Southwest)-JCarriker 17:51, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Birthday greetings

Happy Birthday!

Here's a tasty Birthday cake. Best wishes to you! Hope you enjoy your day. Now, get on out there and have some fun! ;)

--Jen Moakler 01:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please reprotect AIDS conspiracy theories

Hi Thryduulf, same old over on AIDS conspiracy theories, the existence of a dispute is still being denied by some. zen master T 15:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thank you for your support on my RfA! When I submitted it, I was unsure of how I'd do, but the support was great. I promise that I won't do anything too stupid with the trust you've given me. humblefool®Deletion Reform 19:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Stop by Wikipedia:Deletion reform!

[edit] Keep an eye out

Thanks for banning the IP of the user who kept vandalizing the Rush Limbaugh article yesterday. I think he may be back, not doing the same thing, but one new user has been blanking the usertalk pages where comments were left warning the vandal. I left a warning on User talk:AFethke and reverted the blankings. He blanked User talk:198.182.163.115 twice and User talk:130.111.18.147 once. He also removed content from the Left Behind article with a very similar arguement. Just thought I'd give you a heads up. MicahMN | Talk 21:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Wikipedia?

Dear Wikipedia administrator

I am writting you about the issue of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slavs (like Wikipedia calls the Macedonians) and the problem between Macedonia and Greece about the term Macedonia. I am aware that this issue is largely discussed here, at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia claims that it is trying to take a neutral side. But, that is not the case. Wikipedia is everything except neutral in this question. In the following lines I will explain you why.

From the text in Wikipedia most of the people will conclude that Macedonian nation appeared during the World War 2 and Tito was the one who 'invented' us. The family of my wife (she is Mexican) read this and asked me is it truth. That was actually the first time I read what Wikipedia says about my nation, which was a direct reason for my reaction. My grandfather is born in 1911th. Yesterday I had a talk with him. He took a part in the strugle for independence since 1925th and he took a part in the 2nd world war. He is alive and personal prove that Wikipedia is full of bullshit and lies about our origin. He spent half of his life proving and fighting for that. He was shot 3 times, all 3 from the Bulgarians who wanted to ocupy Macedonia in the Balkan wars and in the WW1 and WW2. Just a 1 min with him will show you how many lies you suport in Wikipedia.

I tried to edit some of the text few days ago, but everithing I wrote was deleted. And all I wrote were facts. Fact 1. Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like ONLY Wikipedia, Greece and Cyprus calls us) is the only nation of many living in the area concentrated inside the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia. This is a pure fact, something that you can even find on the CIA web page. Can you give any fact to deny my fact? If you can not, why you erased it from Wikipedia? Fact 2. Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations with about 150 countries in the world. Wikipedia says that "at least 20" countries recognize Macedonia under the name Macedonia. Guess what? That number is more than 100. And this is an officially confirmed by our ministery for foreighn affairs. Fact 3. Wikipedia says that my country Contraversialy calls itself Republic of Macedonia. This is a pure example of taking a side in the problem. Why you don't say that Greece contraversialy deny us the use of the name Macedonia? If you intended to be neutral, just write that we have the naming problem with Greece, but do not call my name "contraversial"!!! Fact 4. While explaining about the antient Macedonia, its kings etc. you highly support the claim for their Greek origin. I can give you 1000s of facts that that is not truth and I beleive that some Greek guy can give you 1000s facts that those claims are truth. That was 2400 years ago and there is no chanse for us to know the real situation. We can only guess. But, when you give the Greek suported version, why you ignore the version suported by the newaged Macedonians? In this moment I can give you 10 names of internationally respected scientist supporting our theory. If you are neutral, why you ignore it? Fact 5. Wikipedia says that the Turkish Empire were calling us Bulgarians. Strange, because the Turks were recognizing the uniqueness of our nation since the moment they occupied the teritory of Macedonia. Actually, the Turkish history archives are the biggest prove of our existance, history and culture. Did anyone of you ever read anything from those archives? Even on the birth certificate of Khemal Ataturk says that he is born in Bitola, Macedonia. And his autobiography is full of memories of his childhood spend with the Macedonians. Fact 6. Wikipedia ignores the egsodus of the Macedonian people from Greece and says they were running because they were supporters of the comunists. 1/3 of the Macedonians have origin from this part of Macedonia. They were runned away from there by force and you can find many historical proves for that. Again, big part of my family has origin from there. As a matter of fact, my grand-grand father was married to a Greek woman, my grand-grand mother. But, no matter of that, his house was burned and he was forced to run away for his life and the life of his family. How dare you deny this? Do you know that even today my grand father is not allowed to visit Greece, because he was a kid when his family runned away from there? Fact 7. There are about 500 000 Macedonians that live outside Macedonia, mostly in Canada, Australia, USA, Sweden etc. At least 1/3 moved there before 1930s. If we were a product of Tito, how can you explain that even they feel of Macedonian nationality? I have a family in USA which moved there in 1927th. Their ancestors (my cousins) do not even know how to talk Macedonian well. But, they still feel Macedonian. One of them is even one of the financiers of the party of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, trying to help their strugle to keep their national identity. I repeat, first time he visited Macedonia was in 1995th, far after Tito. And his family moved in USA in 1927th, far before Tito. Fact 8. Wikipedia claims that the book of Macedonian songs by Dimitar Miladinov is actually Bulgarian. Have you maybe seen a original copy of the book, printed in Croatia? IT says clearly "Macedonian". Not to mention that the same author wrote one of the most important books in the Macedonian history "For the Macedonian issues", again printed in Croatia, where it clearly talks about the Macedonian nation and non-Bulgarian origin.

All this was simply erased from the database. I didn't erase anything when editing these pages, I support the other side and I do not want to hide their facts. But why Wikipedia wants to hide our facts, which show that we are not a product of Tito's ambitions for the Aegean Sea. In Tito's time, the Yugoslav army was far superior in the region. If he wanted the Aegean Sea, he would get it very easily.

Many things in Wikipedia are very offensive for the nowdays Macedonians. Wikipedia simply ignores us, gives us a new name and supports the theories of denial of our existance, culture and history.

I will try to give you an example that includes with Mexico. I beleive that you know that the Maya civilisation was invaded by the Spanish kingdom. Spanish were ruling Mexico for centuries and millions of Spanish people moved at Mexican teritory. Later, after the liberation war, Mexicans formed its own country. Fact 1. Mayas were living in Mexico (same as Antique Macedonians). Fact 2. Spanish invaded them and great number of Spanish people moved to Mexico (The Slavs moved on the theritory of Macedonia and there was no reported fights or movements of people away from the teritory where the Slavs settled). Fact 3. Nowdays, everyone of the Mexican is aware that they are partly Spanish, but they still have Mayan origin (Wikipedia says that the people living in Republic of Macedonia are Slavs. When there was no reported resetling of the Antique Macedonians, how is possible they not to mix with the Slavs? It is a fact that the nowdays Macedonians are not same as the Antique Macedonians, but they certanly have a significant part of their genes. Same as I beleive that Greece has a part of their Genes, but they are definitly not their direct ancestors). Fact 4. Mexican speak Spanish. Reason: The Spanish culture was superior in that time. (The Antique Macedonians accepted the Helenic culture, including a variation of the Greek language. Reason: the Helenic culture was superior in that time. Everyone who knows at least little history will know that Hellenic and Greek are not synonims. Greek is nation, Hellenic is religion/culture. USA and England both speak English, both are mostly cristians, but they are SEPARATE nations. Aren't they? Same happens to Germany and Austria, or Serbia and Croatia, or Canada and France, or Brazil and Portugal, or the rest of Latin America and Spain)

And here is a comment about the claims of the Bulgarians, that the Macedonians are actually Bulgarians. If that is truth, I am going to kill myself. Bulgarians through the history made the worst for my nation. During the strugle of the Macedonian people for independence from the Turkish empire, at the end of the 19th and begginbing of the 20th century, the Bulgarians were the ones who killed the most of our revolutionaries, including 4 members of my close family which were members of the Macedonian revolutionary organization (VMRO). Whis is not something that I was told by Tito. My grandfather (the same grandfather from above) was in fact a member of the same organization. He personaly knew many of the revolutioners that Bulgarians claim are theirs, including 2 of the leaders: Goce Delcev and Gorce Petrov. They were Macedonians and they all gave their lives for free and independent Macedonia and they had nothing to do with Bulgaria. There was a part of them who were Bulgarians inserted in the organizations, who were actually the killers of the real Macedonian revolutioners, because it was in Bulgarian interest to weaken the organization, so they could take the lead in the organization and later put Macedonia in the hands of the Bulgarians. Thanks god, they did not succeed. Wikipedia claims that VMRO was pro-Bulgarian and the revolutioners were Bulgarian fighters. You suposed to see the face of my 94 year old grandfather when I told him your claims. Neurtal Wikipedia? I do not think so.

At the end I have to ask for Wikipedia NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THIS. I am not asking to remove the Greek and Bulgarian side of the story. But, why you ignore our claims, which are suported by many non-Greek and non-Bulgarian scientists and very largely through the web. There are just about 2-2.5 million Macedonians around the world. We do not have enought influence and strenght as Greece has, which is much more powerful and richer country than Macedonia. The Macedonian-Greek question is too hard and too complicated to solve. History can be interpreted in 1000 ways, especially on a teritory like the Balcany, where there are so many nations on so little space. Fortunately, DNA testings are getting more and more reliable and soon it will be possible to be used to acuratelly show the origin of our nations. I hope that then the denyal of me, my history, culture and existance will finaly stop. It is very disapointing that Wikipedia takes a part in all that.

With all the respect, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia is@on.net.mk

- I sterbinski 01:45, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Thanks for your attention at talk:list of PRC companies. Frankly that's not the first time she/he attacks me personally, or making other accusations on my acts on Wikipedia, speculations of my intention, those sort of things. :-| — Instantnood 17:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Igor

I sterbinski has been deleting info from Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia and replacing it with comments like "this is ten years old" and "this is bullshit". 24 hour ban por favor. Thanks. freestylefrappe 19:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stevertigo

Do you realize that he unblocked himself again after you reblocked him? Not only is he not simply doing an Rfa, he's been editing a bunch of other articles as well, see his contribution list. I also like how he gets away with editing a page after protection that he requested.

Also, he blocked the anonymous IP user that reverted him prior to protection for weeks simply for reverting him. This after he threatened to block myself and Trey Stone at the talk page. Evidently this guy needs his powers taken away. --TJive 00:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

There is now an Rfc and other editors and administrators have gotten involved. Please take a look when you have time. Thanks. --TJive 01:23, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Birthday

Hey I met you at the Wikimania 2005 and I just realised that your birthday is the same as mine. The difference is ... I am a bit older than you are :-) In case you don't remember me, here is a picture of me:

Enlarge

Meursault2004 21:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Frankfurt Photos

Hi, I answer any comment at the place were the discussion started. So I left a short message in my my short talk. But first thanks for the reaction. By the way you can help me out with some informations. I just moved in here, left the German wing of WP. But i did not want to leave them without letting them know about my reasons. Now I have seen, your are involved in the cleanup-project. But I did not see you within the Taskforce. May be you can help me out, to understand the Taskforce and their operations. So I can tell the German Wing admins a bit more. When I left the German WP, I promised it. Thanks for any help. It's sad, I havn't written English for many years, now I must refresh it within days. But I think I fail in doing it. --Grabert 10:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stevertigo RfAr

I have requested arbitration against Stevertigo. Please add any comments that you believe are appropriate. Carbonite | Talk 13:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that you mentioned merging the two ArbCom cases involving Stevertigo. I certainly don't have a problem with the ArbCom merging the cases, if it makes it easier for them. The reason I started a new case was because I'm mainly concerned with Stevertigo's actions after he was initially blocked for a 3RR violation. The other case involves another user (User:CJK) and also deals with the editing dispute on Vietnam War. Anyway, thank you for the comments and making yourself available to the ArbCom. Carbonite | Talk 19:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BaronLarf's RFA

Thanks for you support on my recent RFA. Please let me know if I can help with any administrative responsibilities, or if you have any problems with the way I use the admin tools. Cheers. --BaronLarf 00:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You're in a category!

Hi Thryduulf, Your page User:Thryduulf/Geonamesongs has a category:Lists of songs. So the page is mentioned in that category. Maybe you could remove the cat from that page, since I understand it was a construction site. Bye, -DePiep 20:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox standardization

You have just voted for infoboxes to be standardized. We are now putting together a team to implement the new standardization. Your comments on what you want the standardized boxes to look like are welcome here WP:INS. Please sign up for the implementation team.--Fenice 12:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well if you have voted to delete a policy proposal it is not quite rational that you maintain that you support it or are neutral about it, is it?--Fenice 13:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
The third option won't be a problem, because standardization is standardization. There will be no other options. I do not think that it is a bad idea to have a vote first whether there should be any rules at all. It was foreseeable that my proposal (no standardization) would be dealt with long before there is an established standardization, it was highly unlikely that the more specific rule was going to be implemented earlier than the basic one. Anyway. We would enjoy having your comment on what you want the new boxes to look like, they are on WP:INS, if you ever feel like it.--Fenice 13:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I am afraid that "no" in linguistics works a bit more like a bit: it is either one or zero, existent or non existent, switched on or off. There is either no standardization or there is standardization. The options in the state "standardization" are what kind of standardization to have.--Fenice 17:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection of Criticisms of communism

Please take a look at [2]. Ultramarine 09:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Troll/Abuse on Talk:Bogdanov Affair

Could you consider blocking the IP from User:213.237.21.6, User:213.237.21.19, ... (always from 213.237.21.*) aka Sophie Petterka who is making the Talk:Bogdanov Affair page a mess and is abusing (my patience) with defaming insults and name dropping. Thanks. --YBM 23:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

'She' (AFAWK) has now added death threatening to her palmares (BTW, still no comment neither on the article nor on the scientific issue underneath ;-) --YBM 02:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

And now she spends nights removing most editors' talks and throwing garbage in. --YBM 13:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Baird Shearer

In my opinion, Shearer is way too immature for adminship. Particularly I had experiences in the big Gustav Adolf vote battling. There were all sorts of problems, the voting set underwent changes, and Shearer participated in something that at least resembles personal attacks. Moreover, it seemed to me that he tries to play more knowledgeable than he actually is, and there seemed to be some minor catches of such. I still remember how I regarded his behavior as overall partisan and problematic. 217.140.193.123 14:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/Yesterday

The bot portion of the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/Yesterday script has been fixed. Thank you for your minor updates. --AllyUnion (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ASK

Like your new shortcut. Don't know how I didn't think of it myself, which means I like it. :) I agree that we can't get rid of the old one. The page needs what publicity it already has. It's good to have this as an alternate, though. Appreciate your help. Don't forget to advertise the page wherever you can. Superm401 | Talk 23:47, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Admin

Thanks for the nice words :) Most of the things I've heard about my contributions so far is that they are unencyclopedic. ;) And yes, I would accept an admin nomination - if only for the nice rollback button, even though I don't revert much it's still a nice function. Sam Vimes 14:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism in progress

A few weeks ago a Macedonian Slav editor started objecting about the contents of the article Macedonia. An editor (not familiar with the topic) put the article under protection and urged the editors to resolve the dispute in Talk. So it happened. During the discussion, the objecting party would post POV propaganda as evidence for his claims and would throw out personal insults and racist implications (as in degrading degrading darker-skinned people). The situation was so childish that another administrator was summoned in order to unprotect the page and restore the original article. It's been a several weeks since this happened, but the case was far from closed. The objecting party couldn't accept the facts and kept reverting the page 50 times per day, hoping that someone will be bored and give in to his vandalism. This has been going on for over a week and continues as we speak, and none of the admins has bothered to do anything to stop it. Miskin 13:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

That's what every administrator tells me to do and nobody does anything at the end of the day. A look on the history of the page is sufficient to realise how long has it been going on. I don't understand what difference will it make to report it directly to an admin? Is it that hard to put a block on some IP range that has been vandalising the article for weeks? Even if we forget about the insults, his person deserves a 999999-day block just for the sake of 3RR (3 revert rule), which is being broken every 5 minutes. Miskin 14:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Barnstar for You

I hereby award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your heroic efforts in repairing and repelling the Willy on Wheels vandal — Bratschetalk 5 pillars (KC)
I hereby award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your heroic efforts in repairing and repelling the Willy on Wheels vandal — Bratschetalk 5 pillars (KC)

[edit] a VfD

Would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars ever and Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever 217.140.193.123 07:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of airports and companies in the PRC

I'd like to hear your opinion on the recent attempts to display the other versions of these two lists. I've started discussions at the talk pages (airports, companies). Thank you very much. :-) — Instantnood 07:50, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Table namespace

User:Omegatron/Tablenamespacespam — Omegatron 01:08, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistory

Hi Brookie here - haven't seen you at Wikistory lately - have you given up on it? :) The curate's egg 06:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/r/User_talk%7EThryduulf_archive3_e79f.html"