User talk:IronDuke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for stopping by. If you want my attention on something, please:


  • Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
  • Use headlines when starting new talk topics.
  • Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here. I may move your/our comments to the relevant talk page.
  • Do not make personal attacks unless they are funny.


That was the year that was: archive of talk from 2005 and 2006

Year II: archive of talk from 2007

Contents

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for beefing up that somewhat-controversial section of A.N.S.W.E.R. with some sources. Greatly appreciated it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for noticing. I've since added another source, and I think there are more, though I'm not altogether certain when it gets to the point of overkill. But in any case, nice to meetcha, SchuminWeb. IronDuke 20:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrillic

Honey, for you to say that you can read Cyrillic is like anybody saying that they can read Latin because they read a language written using the Latin alphabet. :)~

--72.76.80.58 (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather you at least bought me a glass of Syrah before you start calling me "honey," if you don't mind. That aside, I think the word "characters" is implied in my post, don't you? Or perhaps you struggled with its meaning to a far greater extent than I had previously guessed. If so, profound apologies, but glad you were able to piece it all together finally. Cheers, darling. IronDuke 00:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Sweetie, this is an encyclopedia...we must be precise. Besides, you didn't imply "characters." My point was, and is, transliteration is not enough. How do you know the document isn't written in Bulgarian, or any other language written using the Cyrillic alphabet? --72.76.80.58 (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't have to be quiiite so precise on AN/I, I don't think. And if the word "Cyrillic" didn't imply "characters," by what formidable leap of logic were you able to determine it? Perhaps because it was mind-numbingly obvious? And, if you actually knew anything about reading Cyrillic, you'd know one of the beauties of being able to do so is that you can transliterate many different languages. Erm... doy? But let's not fight any more, shall we, Любимая? IronDuke 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Любимая?? -- are you making a pass at me, sugarplum? Besides, Я думал, что мы имели хорошее обсуждение, не борьбу. BTW, what are the other "beauties" of being able to "read Cyrillic" other than what you said above? --72.68.30.90 (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
When I make a pass at you, you'll know it, свийтчикc. As for other beauties of being able to read Cyrillic characters (took me a second to figure out what you were talking about), why, being able to have this very discussion springs instantly to mind. PS: you should get an account. IronDuke 00:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User page

I'll keep an eye on it and protect it if it happens again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfB

I wanted to personally thank you, IronDuke, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My request for bureaucratship

Dear IronDuke, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns about my candidacy. Unfortunately very few of the opposes gave me advice on points I should improve upon (bar the examples of incivility), and I ask you now, very humbly, to visit my talkpage, should you have any concerns about any of my actions here.
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-18 Second Intifada

Just notifying you, that as you have been involved in the discussion regarding the Second Intifada article, which is now the subject of a MedCab case, I'm notifying you of this as you may wish to partake in this case to discuss a resolution to this dispute. Feel free to leave a comment on my talk page. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This Irishman, Englishman, and Scotsman walked into a bar. Then they shot each other.

So, what, you wanted a joke about my concern about high levels of hostility? :) Relata refero (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

See, now that's what I call a quality post. Thanks for sharing, and congratulations for being the first one to actually take me up on my offer. It's way past my bedtime now, so you will have to wait for me to correct share my thoughts with you on your other comments. IronDuke 01:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources noticeboard

Sorry, I posted that message to the wrong place. In answer to your (presumable) query: I don't consider that I'm in a dispute with you. I'm not taking any view on whether or not you should use the source in question. I've given you my honest opinion on the narrow technical question of whether it would qualify as a reliable source per our criteria. I've explained my concerns about your "petition" on my talk page, and I've asked you to accept that I do have the authority to ask you not to repost it. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the calm message. Please see my prior response on your talk page. (Perhaps we should centralize this discussion?) IronDuke 02:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:RSN#The Nation article re: Daniel Pipes

The reason I did not participate in the revived discussion is that I didn't become aware of it until it had already been closed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. IronDuke 00:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was "closed" immediately after I posted to it, without my point (that McNeil got facts wrong in sliming Pipes, and cannot in the face of that be considered "reliable") being addressed. Did Relata refero have some authority to perform the closure that I need to respect? Andyvphil (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very high up on the "Wikipedia food chain". :) Relata refero (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
No, of course, he did not. It is a difficult issue for me: I can see Relata's point in that the only person objecting to McNeil was me, and I was no longer contributing. On the other hand, given that I had effectively been banned from speaking freely on the page, it may have been a bit precipitous. You are certainly free to un-close it, or star a new thread. I would like to continue the discussion, but I'm in the middle of sorting things out with the admin who threatened me: I am hopeful that matters will soon be cleared up. IronDuke 22:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Since you ask

Well, lets see. Looking at my contributions, I see I commented at the AfD on Ouze Merham immediately before that, so I must have followed the contribs of someone from there. Looking at the overlap between the two pages, I'd guess either Eleland or Jayjg. Does that help? Relata refero (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone is following you about, and his or her editing is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, you should certainly report it to AN/I. Relata refero (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Vry creditable. In my experience, though, demonstrating intent tends to be difficult, and its the above, more objective clause which usually trips up wikistalkers, so I'd keep an eye out for evidence of that. Relata refero (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You're lucky. In my experience that leads to another admin coming and disagreeing with the first admin, and everyone's commenting on my talkpage and I can't get any work done because the orange strip is always across the top of the screen... Relata refero (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, grasshopper, it was a long time ago and under a different name.... Relata refero (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
What, you didn't assume I read the manual? No, we haven't run into each other that I recall. Relata refero (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] By popular demand -

[1] - :-) ScarianCall me Pat! 16:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your question

I rarely email, I tend to keep things out in the open. DHMO posted an entry into his blog here. He makes some irrational comments about a cabal and other crap, which means nothing to me. He does take the immature, naive, or possibly irresponsible view that White Pride is somehow an acceptable racist code-word, as opposed to less acceptable words such as White Supremacist. Unfortunately, because he is either immature, naive, or possibly just is a racist, he's wrong. Using Wikipedia as his source (give me a break), he claims they are different. Using a reliable and verifiable source from the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, who watches out for this crap, they say that White Pride is most definitely racist, anti-semitic and unacceptable. Anyways, racism can be subtle, so who knows. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] heads up on voting

I've started a nomination process to delete Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid_%288th_nomination%29#Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid

just letting ya know! Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)