User talk:Xiong Chiamiov/archive/2007/01
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Vandalism
Hello dear Xiong Chiamiov, me several edits became again and again deleted again and again from the same person (User:Geo-Loge). This prevents me from it, to improve my articles. There, they pursue me already to the English Wikipedia. What can I do against this i****, which me disturbs?
Thank you (User:Nadia Kittel)
- First of all, you should not ignore or disturb communication. Than you should read wikipedia policy, than you should read my comments on the changes that "prevents" you improving "your" articles. At least you should notice, that I have started an Requests for investigation due to a couple of forms of vandalism. Geo-Loge 17:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- P.S.: Dear Xiong Chiamiov, sorry for discus this on your talk page. It is the first time for hours that we have Nadia Kittel communicating.
To Nadia:
- Hello again Nadia (is that what you'd like to be called?). I'd like to cover a few ground rules here, before things escalate and you get into trouble.
- First off, you should read Wikipedia's copyright policy. It is very important that all pictures you upload do not violate copyright. The easiest way to make sure they don't is to take them yourself, if you're in the area.
- Second, always remember that none of us actually "own" an article. You may do a lot of work on an article, but it still belongs to everyone. That's what makes WP so great! If you and one other user are disagreeing, it's a good idea to leave a note on their talk page explaining what you are trying to do. You can also put a message on the talk page of the article. Without communication, there is no way you can understand each other; that will lead to your edits being constantly removed in an edit war. Edit wars are not helpful to anyone, so we try to avoid them.
- It appears that Geo-Loge and you have similar interests. If you are going to be editing the same articles, you should learn how to get along.
- I am rather curious as to why you are putting old information articles, though. Can you explain that please?
- I've noticed that you have blanked your talk page. Rather than doing that, it would be much better if you archive them. Just copy everything there into a new page (such as User talk:Nadia Kittel/archives/1) and place a link here. Or, if you are lazy like me, you can have Werdnabot automatically archive for you.
- I hope that all of this mess gets settled. Remember, stay cool. Cheers! Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 03:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
To Geo-Loge:
- Hello. First, I am not an admin (though I wish to be) :) .
- I've written a note to Nadia. I would also like to remind you (though I'm sure you know) of the 3 revert rule. You and Nadia have taken up a whole page of history for yourselves ;). Didn't your mother teach you to share? We'll see what Nadia says; he seems to be more receptive of me, perhaps because I was the one that welcomed him and gave him initial advice. I'll be around, so let me know how things are. And remember, always stay cool. Cheers! Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 03:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] KT Tunstall
I left a documented piece of trivia on the KT Tunstall page which you referred to as an "experiment." Could you please clarify why this was done? I attached a documented link to the source.
Though I used the "some fans" wording so despised, it was not in the context in which it is avoided, IE as weasel words. Clearly, the articule provided as a source referenced the fact.
I will be at this IP address for the rest of the night, and will then be able to be contacted at gkarber (at) gmail (dot) com. Thank you very much. I hope we can resolve this as quickly as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.31.231.113 (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
To gkarber via email:
- Hmm, I'm sorry about that. I remember checking that article, and seeming to see an inconsistency. However, it was that she was appreciative of her gay fans; I though it said that she was not gay, but she was. So sorry, but any time gay or lesbian is in an addition to an article, I tend to revert. I did actually look at that one, I just made a mistake. Happy New Year! Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 08:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
Hello dear Xiong Chiamiov, I had updated the contribution to Dresden. The populations and other facts, was wrong. This User:Geo-Loge had immediately deleted everything. He even had not contributed anything to this article. Then I shortened everything, so that again it on 72 kb. He disturbet. He sabotaged my whole work and hindered me. I had delivered only interesting additions, more not and there I have not to discuss any desire. Then, he did again and again me erasure my contribution of Rudolf Harbig Stadion simultaneously as well. Simultaneously, I had to improve these, n what however, I came no more to did it. Therefore, he immediately should have been closed, because aimed my new, matching data, which he aimed deleted. He had current datas again and again deleted and is informed others incorrectly, because of himself. And furthermore my work was pointed. Why he will not closed? However, it is fact that he made only everything all broken!!!!!!!!!!
Thank's
I'm Kay in reality. User:Nadia Kittel
- Nadia, please try to talk to Geo instead of to others about him. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The first balloons launched in 1783
Would you be so kind and take a look at this lemma: Montgolfier_brothers. I am trying to improve it, making remarks and references, but my English is not sufficient. I was working on the Dutch lemma the other day and gathered some knowledge. I think the French are best informed on the subject.
Simon Schama writes very literary about the brothers Montgolfier and the balloons and is citing only French sources. His account is interesting, funny and looks reliable.
I assume one of the authers was using a book in French on the subject, or: *Gillispie, C.G. (1983) The Montgolfier brothers and the invention of aviation, 1783-1784 : with a word on the importance of ballooning for the science of heat and the art of building railroads. Princeton, N.J, Princeton University Press. But Schama does not mention it, and I have not read it yet.
May be you like to cooperate on the lemma. Taksen 07:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for the extra life
I think my health increased to unprecedented heights! --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 00:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] OK
i will be sure to do that!--Peace237 02:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
hello ur very stupid i know it ha ha ha ha ha ha told u
[edit] Your 1up award
I've had to remove it. The reason is that the image is copyrighted. It is used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use, and fair use images are not allowed anywhere other than article space: see WP:FU and WP:RFUI for more on the policies. Sorry, it was a nice initiative.. but those awards have to use free images. Mangojuicetalk 21:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I find it chaotic to know to whom to direct messages to in Wikipedia. I have attempted to correct gross errors in some of the articles on Portuguese history, but find that what I contribute is "dissed" by obviously ignorant people who know next to nothing about the topic. They are insulting to me as well. I would like to make two suggestions. 1) If you ever want a decent article on Prince Henry the Navigator the writer needs to start from Sir Peter Russell's recent bio of him. The idea that a bio written a century and a half ago (Major)is as good or better than Russell is utter, absurd nonsense. But there are idiots around who make such a claim. HE'S NOT EVEN READ MAJOR !!! 2) If you ever want a decent article on the controversy over the discovery of Brazil, the writer needs to incorporate the information to be found in Duarte Leite, Luis de Albuquerque, Bailey Diffie, as well as that in the Historia Naval Brasileira and Vigneras (if the writer doesn't know who these historians are he has no business writing the article). If the writer can't do that and can't read Portuguese you will never get even a minimally competent article. The problem with Wikipedia is that many of the contributors are abysmally ignorant of the topic involved (ESPECIALLY HIM), and the monitors (of whom I presume you are one) don't know much more. What your qualifications are I have no idea. I am a professor of Portuguese history at a major US university IT'S A MINOR UNIVERSITY IN ARIZONA WHERE THERE IS NO MAJOR UNIVERSITY. A PROFESSOR IN THE U.S. IS OF COURSE NOT A DEPARTMENT HEAD AS IT IS IN MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD. IT IS MERELY ANY MINOR LECTURER NO MATTER HOW MUCH OF A NOVICE HE MIGHT BE. SO HE IS A MINOR NOVICE LECTURER IN A MINOR UNIVERSITY. But I would never get involved in going to the extensive trouble of writing an article for Wikipedia because of having to fend off imbiciles (no other word fits) like "Dr. Lisboa" and others. VERY ODD WORDS CONSIDERING THAT DR LISBOA HAS REPEATEDLY HUMILIATED HIM ABOUT HIS IGNORANCE AND FOOLISH CONTENTIONS.
The editor above is a serial and cowardly abuser. He initiates rudeness on every single occasion. This becomes very apparent when you check his edits. He also has a remarkably deluded knowledge of the subjects he edits. I have repeatedly asked him to substantiate his contentions on the Prince Henry the Navigator article but he is never able to. He attempts to dodge the questions by every possible means. His obvious inadequacies in this respect are very plain on the discussion page of that article. He has been assessing the various biographies on Prince Henry despite only having even read one instead of checking them all as I have done. He quotes another fallacy ridden book as if it were true depite never having checked the original sources that it liberally misquotes. It is a case of somebody who deals with history in a very naive and superficial manner, but who doesn't realise how ignorant he is. --Dr Lisboa 23:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Xiong, the second paragraph above, from "I find it chaotic....." onwards is actually from an anonymous editor. I added the dark text in order to correct some of his misleading statements. He started editing recently, and has been causing trouble since he arrived. Despite having a superficial knowledge of the subject, he has been making radical unsubstantiated claims and has been very arrogant and abusive to just about everyone. He had already been warned about his actions by one Administrator, but continued. However, once his ISP and their complaints procedure were detailed he suddenly ceased all editing. I suspect that we may not see any more of him. --Dr Lisboa 19:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
