User talk:Ka1iban
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---Please excuse my dust---
Contents |
[edit] Some useful shortcuts
Toolbox TOTALLY stolen from Tawker's user page
|
which all can be found here[1] anyway...
Oh and BTW...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NFT and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:HOLE and don't forget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information
[edit] Rumsfeld
Just a hint - it can be helpful in situations like this to reference existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, (including insisting that anonymous editors sign their Talk comments with ~~~~) and don't feel the need to overexplain yourself if it is clear that the policy is not being followed. This tends to set a professional tone on these discussions, which can help. I dealt with a similar situation recently that took a week or two, but the anonymous editor eventually quieted down and moved on to other things. Since this is not a clear-cut case of vandalism, you might also try posting a summary of the dispute at Mediation Cabal or third opinion. I don't want to get too dragged into it but that might attract some other helpful editors or administrators. Cheers, KWH 07:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thought you might appreciate this; I checked this just on a lark - our friend appears to be coming from an ISP in Germany, and has been trying to add the same stuff continually on German Wikipedia. KWH 05:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hah! That explains his creative phrasing...I honestly don't think I have the strength to get in a big tussle over his edits. I just wish he'd realize that getting an ID would take him a long way from 'whackjob' to 'contributor'. Guess I'll put in for arbitration if things get worse. Thanks for following up on it, though. ka1iban 15:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to remove that paragraph. I think we went a long way towards assuming good faith, but it appears that it's original research. Shortly after the paragraph was left in the article, see what shows up on http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/rumsfeld.html -
- "Entry in Wikipedia "Donald Rumsfeld":
- Some critics feel that Rumsfeld's responses on the day of the 9/11 attacks (which are outlined in the Pentagon press briefing of Sept. 15, 2001…"
- So this person is using Wikipedia to buttress their controversial claims on their own (or good friend's) website, and get traffic. I'm going to wait another day or two and remove the paragraph in question, but I am open to your opinion. KWH 07:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hah! Busted! Yeah, that's not gonna play. Book'em, Dano. Pull the link, too, if it's just OR and personal promotion...ka1iban 14:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- In response to your question "can this guy be reasoned with" - pretty doubtful. I think we've done all we can in good faith, and everything that needs to be explained has been. It's pretty close to clear that this individual's motivation was only to include this claim in the article so they could cite it on their own website. Ignoring it can work. If they decide to put it back in the article themselves, wait a day or two and then remove it. Basically make it more work than it's worth for them to get their way. If they get nutty and start vandalising or breaking 3RR, then they could be easily banned, but that's only temporary and sometimes I like the challenge of getting them to bugger off without that being necessary. KWH 04:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hah! Busted! Yeah, that's not gonna play. Book'em, Dano. Pull the link, too, if it's just OR and personal promotion...ka1iban 14:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to remove that paragraph. I think we went a long way towards assuming good faith, but it appears that it's original research. Shortly after the paragraph was left in the article, see what shows up on http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/rumsfeld.html -
- Hah! That explains his creative phrasing...I honestly don't think I have the strength to get in a big tussle over his edits. I just wish he'd realize that getting an ID would take him a long way from 'whackjob' to 'contributor'. Guess I'll put in for arbitration if things get worse. Thanks for following up on it, though. ka1iban 15:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] STA Edits
Hey, I thought I'd just stop by and thank you for the contribution you made to the Saint Thomas Academy page. The section you added seems like a good choice for an edit. (And maybe it'll keep down the random IP address edits Wiki gets to STA's page stating "Mock Trial brings the ruckus" Heh.)Pvt Mahoney 20:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Summit Ave
Ka1iban,
Regarding your tagging my piece on Summit Avenue: Yep, I need to expand it - the stub was a couple of hours old when you tagged it. Work called. I will be adding to it shortly.
[edit] Clippings
In recent continuity however, this power has been de-emphasized by writers in favor of the perceptual acuity afforded Daredevil by his superhuman senses, which are represented as giving him a "radar-like" awareness of his surroundings.
[edit] Minnesota meetup
A meetup of Wikipedians in Minnesota is proposed: please stop by the discussion page if interested. Jonathunder 02:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Reminder: Meetup October 29, one o'clock, Mall of America. Jonathunder 16:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Claudiablack9.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Claudiablack9.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
