User talk:Suicup
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Suicup, 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:Questions, 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! --Ugur Basak 07:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Telex 12:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] user:Ghirlandajo's nationalism
Ghirla's personal grievances cannot influence how Russian-related articles are dealt with. He has a tendency to avoid and suppress any negative facts concerning his homeland Russia. His knee jerk reactions are extremely detrimental to the project and should cease immediately, as well as the personal attacks and labels he constantly throws at contributors, even those with sources. 83.5.219.182 01:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
26 Nov 2005
[edit] Mediation
I am the mediator for the Mediation Cabal case you submitted. I need you to fill out the part marked 'What would you like to change' so I can help you. Geo.plrd 21:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MEDIATION
I have left a message on Ghirlandjo's talk page. He has not responded as of this time. Geo.plrd 01:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Another shortened version of the paragraph
I have replied in Talk:Russo-Turkish_War,_1877–1878 with my suggestion of a version of the paragraph shortened a bit more to not emphasize the scale of the massacre, and your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 05:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Civility warning
This comment [1] is not, in my view, appropriately civil. I've warned you once, and this is now a more formal warning. If you continue to make incivil remarks, you are in danger of being blocked. Please review our civility guidelines and please contribute constructively. ++Lar: t/c 05:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Excuse me?? How can you call me 'incivil' (which isn't even a word) when others in that discussion have directed personal attacks towards me? I have done nothing of the sort. I don't know where you come from, but 'take it on the chin' is certainly not an uncivil expression. If anything you (and others) are being hypersensitive. All i am doing is pointing out an opinion which many others shared regarding that article. Surely as a so-called administrator you can understand that?Suicup 08:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is about your comments, not those of others. If others need warnings, they will get them as well. I stand by my warning to you, and note that your reply to it is itself not as civil as it could be: "so-called" being rather pejorative. This is your third warning. Please be civil or face the consequences. ++Lar: t/c 11:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I use 'so-called' because i would expect an administrator to be able to engage in debate, and not have to resort to calling remarks 'uncivil'. The fact remains nothing i have said has been inflammatory, nor has it been a personal attack. You seem to have taken personally the comments i wrote after your 'outsiders view' comment on the Ubuntu talk page. I already clarified (and apologised) that my comment had nothing to do with you. I have not intended to denigrade the editors of the Ubuntu article, merely asked a relevant question of the quality of the article. If that sort of discussion is ban worthy, then i'm afraid Wikipedia has become too caught up in its own bureaucracy, and it is a sad day for the project. Suicup 12:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- You're not really internalising what you've been told here, I'm afraid. My chosen role in this is not to engage in debate about the article itself but rather to review the actions of the editors involved. Your actions merit scrutiny and warnings, and if you can't be civil and collegial then I'm afraid that Wikipedia may not be the right project for you. I've got this page on watch so you don't have to leave me notices that you've replied (although I do appreciate it) if you don't want to. ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes but what defines civil? I believe everything I said has been civil, and I would expect a reasonable person to concur. It is your opinion (and you indeed stated so) that my remarks were 'uncivil'. I see hypersensitivity. As for WP not 'being right for me', thanks for the laugh. Can you please explain to me how 'get off your high horse', and 'take it on the chin' are so uncivil? Both were responses to certain editors who had clearly taken comments too personally, and were designed to bring back some sensibility to the discussion. Furthermore, both are accepted phrases and were not derogatory in the way they were used. It is the Australian way. Suicup 12:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am a reasonable person and I do not concur with your view of your civility. Ultimately, it is indeed a judgement call on the part of an admin when a civility warning or block is handed out. Further, Australian standards do not apply here, we hold ourselves to a higher standard, which you need to comply with. I'm done with this conversation, you're not internalising what you've been told, you're arguing the point. You've been warned, and further incivility will result in a block, which I will put up for review, in accordance with my practice regarding blocks. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- So we should follow American standards then? Also it has nothing to do with internalising, i'm just curious. Suicup 13:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- No. We should, and must, follow Wikipedia standards. Not American, not UK, not Australian, not S'porean, but Wikipedian. Please review WP:CIVIL until this is clear. Your question suggests it is not. Further, you're starting to waste my time, which could be better spent elsewhere, with this back and forth. You've been warned. You've been given the material to review to help you understand what needs changing in your approach. Please change it. ++Lar: t/c 13:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- So we should follow American standards then? Also it has nothing to do with internalising, i'm just curious. Suicup 13:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am a reasonable person and I do not concur with your view of your civility. Ultimately, it is indeed a judgement call on the part of an admin when a civility warning or block is handed out. Further, Australian standards do not apply here, we hold ourselves to a higher standard, which you need to comply with. I'm done with this conversation, you're not internalising what you've been told, you're arguing the point. You've been warned, and further incivility will result in a block, which I will put up for review, in accordance with my practice regarding blocks. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes but what defines civil? I believe everything I said has been civil, and I would expect a reasonable person to concur. It is your opinion (and you indeed stated so) that my remarks were 'uncivil'. I see hypersensitivity. As for WP not 'being right for me', thanks for the laugh. Can you please explain to me how 'get off your high horse', and 'take it on the chin' are so uncivil? Both were responses to certain editors who had clearly taken comments too personally, and were designed to bring back some sensibility to the discussion. Furthermore, both are accepted phrases and were not derogatory in the way they were used. It is the Australian way. Suicup 12:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- You're not really internalising what you've been told here, I'm afraid. My chosen role in this is not to engage in debate about the article itself but rather to review the actions of the editors involved. Your actions merit scrutiny and warnings, and if you can't be civil and collegial then I'm afraid that Wikipedia may not be the right project for you. I've got this page on watch so you don't have to leave me notices that you've replied (although I do appreciate it) if you don't want to. ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I use 'so-called' because i would expect an administrator to be able to engage in debate, and not have to resort to calling remarks 'uncivil'. The fact remains nothing i have said has been inflammatory, nor has it been a personal attack. You seem to have taken personally the comments i wrote after your 'outsiders view' comment on the Ubuntu talk page. I already clarified (and apologised) that my comment had nothing to do with you. I have not intended to denigrade the editors of the Ubuntu article, merely asked a relevant question of the quality of the article. If that sort of discussion is ban worthy, then i'm afraid Wikipedia has become too caught up in its own bureaucracy, and it is a sad day for the project. Suicup 12:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is about your comments, not those of others. If others need warnings, they will get them as well. I stand by my warning to you, and note that your reply to it is itself not as civil as it could be: "so-called" being rather pejorative. This is your third warning. Please be civil or face the consequences. ++Lar: t/c 11:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Transmission protection
- Thanks for making a comment on User_talk:70.137.141.253. It seems he has ignored your advice. I am now not the only one who is reverting this user's edits. I think some sort of protection is needed to resolve the situation. Cheers. Suicup 09:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I put my comment after his/her last edit. Therefore, we can not know the result yet. :) However, the page is in my watch list too, but I thought the change was not an obvious vandalism, thus decided not to revert it for some time.
- BTW, I compiled transmission yesterday but haven't been able to try yet. So I don't know whether it is banned by most or some trackers. Anyway, we should keep an eye on the article and hope for a good discussion to make it factual. Keep up the good work. --Emre D. | Talk 09:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have had constructive discussions with others on Transmission's talk page. Lets hope this user does the same. Suicup 10:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 |
Hi mate, if you're a fan of Aussie rules, I suggest you take a look at WikiProject AFL (join by adding your name to the list of participants) and the Australian rules football portal. Also take a look at Category:VFL/AFL players and feel free to drop me a line with any questions, or on the WP:AFL discussion page. Cheers! |
