User talk:Yellowmellow45
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
User talk:Yellowmellow45/ archive 1
Contents |
[edit] Yachting at the 1980 Summer Olympics
Thank you for the photo of the venue, it's nice! :) Cmapm 17:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3rr on David Irving
You have broken WP:3RR on David Irving. Since I've blocked N-R I'm going to block you too, for 8h. Please be more careful in future William M. Connolley 15:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Errr, actually, I didn't - 3 reverts within 24 hours, and then one after 26 hours I think an appology is needed. Dave 16:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree read WP:3RR, the point is not to edit war it is not a permission to revert 3 times exactly every 24 hours, you were edit warring and the block is to prevent the disruption that causes. --pgk(talk) 16:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- But I consider the edits of the other user to be vandalism, of which reverting IS NOT disruption. I think I'll give up trying to edit that page!! Dave 16:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm - OK, I was a bit careless, because you're right: it wasn't quite in 24h. So you can have an apology for that. With apologies to Pgk too, I'm going to unblock you, and N-R too. William M. Connolley 16:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thankyou very much!! Dave 16:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm - OK, I was a bit careless, because you're right: it wasn't quite in 24h. So you can have an apology for that. With apologies to Pgk too, I'm going to unblock you, and N-R too. William M. Connolley 16:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- But I consider the edits of the other user to be vandalism, of which reverting IS NOT disruption. I think I'll give up trying to edit that page!! Dave 16:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
You're now un-auto-blocked too. Leave a note here if it doesn't work. William M. Connolley 18:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dear Dave
This is Max, I'm a distant relative of Akiva Eiger, as are you.
I live in the US, my email is littleredbook@optonline.net my AIM screenname is GWBtheCrook and my MSN is rhcparrmatey@hotmail.com
I would really like to speak to you, I am related to Akiva through my maternal grandfather,and I have the records at www.jewishgen.org
Please contact me if you wish,
Max
by the way, if you do not believe me, you can look up "Srul Iger" on the www.jewishgen.org website. I am descended from him, and that's how I'm connected to Akiva Eiger. I am very interested in speaking with you, seeing how it seems we are indeed distant cousins. Please contact me at your leisure.
[edit] To: Dave
you falsely accused me of illegal and POV
exposing those that have murdered and persecuted the Jews
see the photographs of catholic clergy saluting Hitler
To restrict and strangulate the truth from being told is an injustice.
To quote one that You admire: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" (Martin Luther King, Jr.).
Dear Dave, what is wrong is like any situation there is always disgruntled persons. and People that always want to lie and cause trouble. These people are doing that. the page that someone created is not accurate. They twisted the situation to deliberately slander someone they don't like. I meant no personal harm when I sent you that link to the photo gallery. I just you to know who the real deceivers and liars are. The pictures tell it for them. They can not deny the photos. why don't you check out the web site for yourself? then decide for yourself. Narrow is the way
- I have my doubts about you. And I think I know what happened during the holocaust and so do not need your pictures. That has nothing to do with the changes you have made to the page. What are you saying, that we're all Catholic Nazis?? Dave 17:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I never said you were a catholic nazis, the pictures of clergy saluting hitler are not you are they? the reverts to the page you are doing are not true. You did not read what I put up. the answers are there if you will only read it! Narrow is the way
[edit] Argumentum ad baculum
It was my (almost) first contribution. Forgive me being biased or injust. You're absolutely right, neutrality is best, specially when the article is in fact about logic!
Isilanes 10:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Lol. Yes, it is better to keep it that way. Dave 10:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your edit to Censorship
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Courtesy warning. I will watch the article with you. - CobaltBlueTony 18:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- It may just be a misunderstanding on your part, but I was of the opinion that I was reverting vandalaism as were other editors. I do not think that this message has done anything to relieve tensions or any impatients that I may harbour due to the continual cycle of vandalism to that page. It is getting rather tedious, and I think that you should maybe analyse the situation as a whole. Dave 19:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- It seems very much of a difference of opinion to me (and therefore possibly the same to others), and as such it should be discussed first. WP:3RR warnings are proactive, and not disciplinary. They're intended to stave off edit wars and encourage discussion first. - CobaltBlueTony 19:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. I realise. But I think you will find that wikipedia editors are united on the matter. I was certainly quite offended by this message. Dave 19:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I understand, and I do agree with the position, but the 3RR notice was a courtesy note based on your method of editing, not an insult or demand. Please try to be the Devil's advocate and edit for the enemy as it were, thereby strengthening your ability to edit per WP:NPOV. Respectfully, CobaltBlueTony 19:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. This does feel abit patronising, and the fact that more than one admin has been reverting that anon's edits doesnt seem to mean anything to you.Dave 10:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- I understand, and I do agree with the position, but the 3RR notice was a courtesy note based on your method of editing, not an insult or demand. Please try to be the Devil's advocate and edit for the enemy as it were, thereby strengthening your ability to edit per WP:NPOV. Respectfully, CobaltBlueTony 19:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. I realise. But I think you will find that wikipedia editors are united on the matter. I was certainly quite offended by this message. Dave 19:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- It seems very much of a difference of opinion to me (and therefore possibly the same to others), and as such it should be discussed first. WP:3RR warnings are proactive, and not disciplinary. They're intended to stave off edit wars and encourage discussion first. - CobaltBlueTony 19:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Karlovac
Why you reverting my edits in Karlovac article? I saw other articles about cities on Wikipedia and names in other languages there are writen either in the first sentence either in the separate section for them. The point is that Karlovac do not have significant ethnic German and Hungarian populations, hence names in these languages are today very rarely used (if they are used at all). The first sentence of the article should have data about other, more important things, but these names are not so important to be exactly in the first sentence. If somebody want to know thwm, he can find them in the "Name" section as well. -Jozo-
[edit] Location Maps
On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb 2007 20:44 (UTC)
