User:Mikkalai/artalk10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Sept-dec 2007

Contents

Your deletion of Template:Phobia

I don't have a problem with you marking it for deletion, but next time if you remember the courtesy of leaving a note with the creator to let him or her know, it would be appreciated. :) SGGH speak! 16:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There must be some kind of mistake here. Mikka would never neglect to do such a thing. -- But|seriously|folks  16:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
In that case he or she must have just been distracted :) SGGH speak! 21:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I was writing about swift exrajudicious speedy deletion, when the author does not have time to notice what hit him. As for voted deletion, if the author does not have a page on their watchlist, why should I care about the page more than the author? `'Míkka 01:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template." -- But|seriously|folks  01:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please don't remove tags from artcles without addressing the concern in accordance with wikipedia rules. `'Míkka 02:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be griefing everyone on the obvious notability of zen cart. What is this "without addressing the concern" of which you write? The edit summary clearly addresses the concern, and at least 3 other editors at other times have correctly agreed that zen cart is notable, by removing an innapropriate "not notable" tag. If what you really mean is "I own the wiki, and no one is allowed to change anything I do", get over it. I know it's not fun to see your babies slaughtered by the unruly mob, but once you get used to it, you'll be a lot happier. Ace Frahm 07:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

WP meetup

  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup 3
  Date: September 16th, 2007
  Place: Yerba Buena Gardens, 3pm
  San Francisco Meetup 2

-- phoebe/(talk) 05:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Suvorov

Suvorov's Italian and Swiss expedition. Wow. That's pretty good going for someone who was "nearly seventy". I wonder what would have happened if his armies had met Napoleon's in battle? Carcharoth 19:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


NOR

Was there consensus for this? If so, I'll self-revert. Cogden has been edit-warring to keep his non-consensus version in. I'm glad you stepped in. Dreadstar † 18:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well put! Chaos: exactly the point I made earler in this dispute! Dreadstar † 19:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It's amazing, the protecting admin reverted back to the wrong version before protecting. I think he was doing it to try and be as neutral as possible...but we still have a protected wrong version in place...and no end in sight to the dispute... Dreadstar † 20:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wends

As someone whom I have found to be quite knowledgeable about Baltic history, would you mind taking a look at Talk:Wends and how to best reconcile the article's phrasing regarding Venedes? Olessi 19:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a jokebook

OK... so why not delete the entire article on mathematical joke? I do not understand your distinction.—PaulTanenbaum 05:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know...

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 10 September 2007, a fact from the article cigarette case, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 talk 22:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The desert on your user page is staring back at me. Do you know of any other nature images that look like a cross between Pablo Picasso, H.R. Giger and/or Lovecraft? --Kizor 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Seen quite a few in wikimedia, but did not particularly collected them. How do you like this "Chicken and real big grain" ("partridge and mushroom")? Can you imagine these blockheads in wikimedia refused to recognize the desert as a featured image? P.S. Kinda curious: what have you been doing at my user page? `'Míkka 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hah! It looks unreal and completely real at the same time. I probably shouldn't deliberately see everyone's point of view, but I can imagine that. Looks like they were two problems, first the black line, a real technical problem fixable with Photoshop, and second the fact that voters were not briefed about what the image is about and how, and therefore didn't approach it as proof of the wonders of nature as much as something that looks like The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young doing nasty things to Jupiter. Fix those and it should pass, no problem.
I chanced upon your page because of a random click from the ARS talk page. I'm considering joining, it looks like a worthwhile project. If it helps, I was crazy on perfectly legal amphetamines at the time. Short but boring story involving prediagnostic medication tests and suspected ADHD that wasn't there. Better now. --Kizor 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/latest suggestion

I see that you've removed your name multiple times from the list, and I saw that this was recently completed, so you can add your name to prevent your name from appearing on future lists. Hope that helps, and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 21:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Add your name to that list and the next time I generate the list, I'll replace your name with a placeholder before I upload it, avoiding the tendency of editors to edit-war over the list. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I prefer to have it my way, i.e., no placeholders. `'Míkka 22:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I prefer to have it with your name in the list. Instead of adding your name back to the list, though, I invite you but please try to come to some sort of consensus through compromise instead of edit warring. That includes placing your name on the "Anonymous" list – it is an attempt at compromise, and should not be so roughly rejected. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

World of Homestar Runner

For reference, merge discussions usually take place on the target article's talk page (Talk:Homestar Runner#Merge in this case). The only information worth keeping was a list of characters. TTN 00:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Abuse"

Hi Mikkalai,

Why are you revering this with the edit summary Revert abuse? Adding a link to another version of this list is hardly abusive. What's going on? Firsfron of Ronchester 00:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi Mikkalai,

I don't know why you've violated WP:3RR for the sake of an internal link, but I've blocked your account for 24 hours. You've removed the link repeatedly, each time with a different explanation (first time no explanation, second time Rv abuse, third time , no link to official policy which might clear up why you've violated WP:3RR). I'm at a loss as to why you'd do this, but it's not the first time you've violated 3RR. What's going on? Firsfron of Ronchester 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This also concerns me: the assertion that someone else is trying to own the page, when it's clear only you've reverted beyond 3RR. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Admins must not block editors they are in a dispute with.

Request handled by: Duk 01:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Duk that unblocking was warranted. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Settle down please

This is not acceptable. You've been around long enough to know not to hit "Save page" when you're feeling that way. -- But|seriously|folks  03:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

<plonk> `'Míkka 14:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Council of People's Commissars

Dear User:Mikkalai:

    I want a distinct article just on the above as it was in 1917 and shortly thereafter.
It's very, very, important, because the Antisemites in both Britain and the USA spent much time trying to establish that Bolshevism was essentially a Jewish phenomena. See: Jewish Bolshevism.
Also see: A Protocol of 1919.
But it just disappeared!
Can you help me?
Thanks.
--Ludvikus 16:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I've identified the reversion. If you think the article should not exist separately, why don't you recommend a Merge like so {{Merge|Government of the Soviet Union}} ???

{{Main|Government of the Soviet Union}}

Or

Main article: Government of the Soviet Union
That I've put in, Putin!!!
OK? --Ludvikus 17:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

ID Sniper rifle

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article ID Sniper rifle, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. ForeverDEAD 21:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Russian dairy products

Fancy writing the articles about ru:топлёное молоко or ru:ряженка? I'm surprized that nobody has heard about them in the West. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ne po svoej.jpg

I noticed that the image Image:Ne po svoej.jpg, which is a "fair use" image was being used in several articles in a way that does not qualify as fair use. Generally speaking, book covers can only be used in articles that discuss the book itself, not just the subject of the book. —dgiestc 17:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. `'Míkka 17:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-humor neologism

Hello. The reason I'd flagged anti-humor as being a neologism was that we only had one source referring to the concept of jokes without punchlines as a coherent genre of joke, and giving it the name "anti-humor". Thanks for referencing some extra sources to confirm that it isn't just one academic's isolated concept. --McGeddon 20:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. --McGeddon 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Kolkhoz/Sovkhoz Articles

I see you edited both of them, which probably meant I was wrong, but isn't "экономика" "economy"? And the sovkhoz article used "household", which really confused me, since, to the best of my knowledge, economy ≠ household.

So, what exactly does "хозяйство" mean in that context? - Tajik24 06:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, seemed like it. Thanks for clearing that up for me, btw. - Tajik24 16:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

R (c)

Oops, sorry. I just happened to stumble upon it today. Regards. —Michael Z. 2007-09-28 19:16 Z

Piłsudski and facism

Some time ago during Piłsudski's FAC you raised a point about connections between him and facism. I am reading his bio, and today I found an interesting trivia: the only newspaper closed down after the May Coup was... Faszysta Polski :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to read such articles. Not that I doubt such comparisons were drawn - simply because I am interested in them, and haven't seen them; all of what I read put Pilsudski in opposition to facism and totalitarism (not that I am fond of sanacja, mind you - but democracy in Second Polish Republic was a mess, as usually is in any new democracies...).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish Bolshevism vs. Jewish Bolshevism

The Latter is your "baby", so to speek. But that's no reason to keep it. Why don't you enage in a discussion? You give no reason why you need this article! --Ludvikus 15:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Russkie Commies

"How come so many Russians were Communists? Don't you think you should write an article on it?" Do you get my point--Ludvikus 05:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Third Opinion

Requests for Third Opinion are supposed to be neutral. Your request was very POV. It would be more appropriate phrased as a request for simple input on the subject, not a request to talk someone else out of their point of view. Could you please resubmit your request formatted with NPOV. Also, please sign your request with five tildes so that only the date and time, not your name, is seen. This helps avoid POV as well. Padillah 15:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot help, go away bureaucratic troll. `'Míkka 15:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, they're not my guidelines. It says right at the top Provide a concise and neutral description of the disagreement This does not include asking that someone be talked out of their opinion. It also states in no uncertain terms Sign with five tildes (15:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)) to add the date without your name. Which was clearly not done. If you want to call names please call them at the people that made the rules, not me. If you want help, I'll help - If you want to call names I will leave you to yourself. Padillah 15:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bolshevics

You asked for a third opinion. If I don't agree with you right down the line, is not a reason to bite. I'm trying to see all sides and explore some options, though I tend to agree with you more than disagree. You seem to be head-on to the other editor, and now manuevering into head-on with me. Why? Can't we evolve a solution rather than mandate one? Time is on your side, as reason will generally prevail at WP. If you disagree with my style, please take it away from the battle ground. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 16:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Peace

  • Could we engage in a peaceful, reasonable, discussion? Wikipedia asks that we assume good faith. I want to do that. I certainly do not want to offend you personally, although I find "Jewish Bolshevism" extremely offensive. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied a place on Wikipedia - since Wikipedia is about everything significant.
  • It seems to me that you have no sound reason why the Article expression should be separated from the book which embodies it. Why do you think that? Best to you, --Ludvikus 17:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Troll (Wikipedia) & Troll (disambiguation)

I created the above Stub from scrach just a moment ago. I thought you might have a useful contribution to make to it. I've noticed it used on several occasions, and I've noticed your use of it when you did not get the response you were looking for when you asked for a third opinion - you called the responding Wikipedian a "beaurocratic troll," as I recall. So I would appreciate it if you took a stand on my resent Stub contribution()s) in above. Thanks. And best to you. By the way, a recent editor whom I respect has informed me that you are one of the better Administrators at Wikipedia. So I'd like to be on good terms with you, even if we disagree on particular articles. Is that possible? Cheers. --Ludvikus 11:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


kelly martin?

The only two references I have made recently about Kelly have been Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Controversial RFA and Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs#Continuous, neither of which, I imagine, are the reason why you posted on my talk page.... Oh wait, you mean her userpage which I redirected to her talk page. I don't really care about that: I was just trying to save others a mouse click, but most users should be able to figure out that her talk page is still there. Uh, when you post to me in the future, please provide full context to which of my edits you are referring to. I have already seen that you have done so for your current message, so I consider the matter closed.--Mightyms 03:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Zhetysu =

The page was unmovable. Thats why I just copied/pasted. Could you solve the issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashkazakh (talk • contribs) 08:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fear of dogs

Hi there. I removed the information you inserted again into this article. The information is dubious at best (this is my opinion) but the reason it was removed is due to the WP:NOT policy. WP:NOT#HOWTO explains it in detail, but in essence Wikipedia is not a howto guide. If the information is reliable and sourced we can work the material in the article, but not in its current format. Thanks. mceder (u t c) 17:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed with ridiculously superficial application of the rule: the deleted text contains encyclpedic info about dog's behavior. `'Míkka 00:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I can call everything I don't agree with "ridiculous" too... I am certainly not interested in reverting with you back and forth. But what does "deleted under dubious and non-binding pretext" mean? The text I removed is a how to guide, writing in a manner not suited for the article. If you believe there is good information in the text i deleted, then perhaps we should take the time to write it into the article properly? The way it looks now is amateurish at best. (I have copied this to Talk:Fear of dogs so we may continue there). mceder (u t c) 05:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Brainless reverts

The reason I removed some math ratings templates was that a different user decided to mass tag a lot of articles without filling in the rating details. It wasn't clear whether he was aware the math wikiproject has agreed not to do that. We don't tag large numbers of articles without filling in the details, which means that the statistics are actually useful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Beer Lovers Party

See Talk:Beer_Lovers_Party. If you want to do any more reverting come speak to me first. I promise I won't ignore any message left on my talk page! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Draft Beer Party

Hi. I was looking for a guideline under which this article could remain, but didn't find one. Could you point me toward the one you found which says: "even one election is a verifiable historical event, so the article cannot easily dismissed". Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Siberian Curse

Rewrote the article to a book article. So the claim of "neologism" is no longer valid. Do you still have any other objection. If not, can you withdraw your objection? Sijo Ripa 11:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Ganges lrg.jpg. artical: Ganges

the image source and copyright information for Image:Ganges_lrg.jpg has been revised. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanket ar (talk • contribs) 21:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Setu

A tag has been placed on Setu, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD G11.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chinese in Russian Revolution

Chinese in Russian Revolution, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Chinese in Russian Revolution satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese in Russian Revolution and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Chinese in Russian Revolution during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Carlosguitar 08:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

Updated DYK query On 11 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article water stop, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 talk 12:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, have some fun: Talk:Water_stop#Article_history. Laudak 17:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine. Laudak 21:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT

I don't have WP:POINT watchlisted, so I only just now noticed this beautiful edit. Thank you; it made my day. —Cryptic 13:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Byelorussian_SSR

I've just moved existing page in Vietnamese to that name, and have added it again. Anyway, thank you. Vinhtantran 07:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity

List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jmlk17 22:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Polish notation vs. Prefix notation

  • As a formal student of Philosophy and Logic in the United States, I have always known this subject by its former name.
Furthermore, Google shows us the former is far more common.
Accordingly, I'm recommending that the Title of this Article be changed to the former. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to get the Article changed - to its more common name. Poland deserves credit for its great positive work, especial when the work carries its name. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No objections. `'Míkka 00:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


Soviet secret services leaders = genocide perpetrators?

This is what User:Cautious thinks. Of course, no sources. Is he right? If not, what should I do about it (reverting excluded)? P.S. I wrote here because you're the first user interested in Soviet history i could think of. If I was mistaken, feel free to recommend somebody else.Anonimu 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This guy behaves in odd way. The guys like Berzin or Garanin or Zarubin were obviously muss murderers on the cosmic scale. Tell him not to revert anythingm but discuss. Cautious 20:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA.Anonimu 20:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Why you put NPOV flag without putting anything in talk page?? Cautious 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"Genocide perpertrators" would be an infinite unmaintainable category starting from Herod, pharaohs or something in early chinese history I don't knw, but I am sure some emperors were quite cutthroats. Anyway, as I see, cfd is under way. In addition, I hate to give you wrong ideas, but the correct term for Soviet crimes is democide. And there is category:Democides, and again, I don't think "perpertarors" will survive. `'Míkka 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you think "mass murderers" suites better? Cautious 09:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Even if I think it is better, emotional terms blur your mind. I would easily write this expression in a newspaper, but not in an article in a historical magazine. `'Míkka 03:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Floyd's cycle-finding algorithm

You've just reverted an edit to Floyd's cycle-finding algorithm which I think was kosher.

The text you reinstated claims that the algorithm is in a paper about nondet algorithms, but the algorithm in there has depth-first search, not the tortoise-and-hare algorithm. If you look at the history of the article, the reference was first introduced with an offhand "appears to be". I haven't found a publication of the algorithm as such, but Knuth quotes it with attribution to Bob Floyd in 1968, which is pretty close to the claimed date.

Do you have a good reason for reverting it, or can I put Knuth back? I'll watch Talk:Floyd's cycle-finding algorithm. 163.1.125.59 09:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Jewish Bolshevism

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Jewish Bolshevism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism. Thank you. IZAK 10:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: MILHIST tagging

Yes, it's a bit beyond what we've conventionally done. I'll see what I can do. Kirill 04:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Siberia

Sorry, I just wanted to remark that this little end of an exchange made me laugh pretty hard for Wikipedia:

Yeah, sure. But how come each time I look into zolotaryovopedia, I find something fishy? Probably my zolotaryovophobia... Mikkalai 20:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Probably. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Epthorn 13:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


Bolding comments

Hi, I think you misunderstood my comment. I'm not voting. I have de bolded. Best regards. Mercury 02:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for for personal attacks and edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

.

Mikklai, I have been following the dispute between you and User:Ludvikus at Talk:Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War‎, and have already issued warnings to you and Ludvikus. (The warning to you was reverted by you, without comment).

I am aware that the conduct of User:Ludvikus has been highly disruptive, and you may have seen that Ludvikus has already been repeatedly warned to desist, most recently by the admin User:Banno: see User talk:Ludvikus#On_editing_Wikipedia....

However, it is not acceptable to respond in kind to disruption by personal, attacks or edit warring. I have been reading the discussion at Talk:Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War#Repeated.2C_arbitrary.2C_capricious.2C_and_unreasonable_reversions, in which you have made a serious personal attack on another editor and stated your clear intention to continue edit warring: "I am at war with this person". This is desp-ite clear warnings in that thread from other admins, in addition to my earlier warning.

Personal attacks are deplorable, but in other circumstances I would at this point merely have issued a further warning. However, your stated intention to continue edit-warring is unacceptable, and it is for that reason that I have blocked you. The block is for 48 hours, which is longer than would normally be imposed at this stage, but because you are an admin this disruption is more serious than it would be for another editor. A block is a preventive measure, so I will of course lift the block immediately if you can promise that to stop edit warring.

Blocking another admin is a serious step, so I will also raise this matter for discussion at WP:ANI. Meanwhile, do not remove this block notice while the block is in force. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See the review request at WP:ANI#Admin_User:Mikkalai_blocked_for_48_hours.2C_review_requested. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

I have unblocked you per my reasoning given at the discussion at ANI. I strongly suggest that do not further disrupt this article. Spartaz Humbug! 09:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am disrupting this article? An amazing amount of brain-damaged administrators in defense of a vicious troll. It has been a long critique, strating from Larry Sanger that wikipedia dislikes experts. Now look at the evolution: wikipedia in defense of trolls! `'Míkka 15:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You say this person is a troll, yet you have not filed an RFC, not made a post on ANI, nor made any reasonable attempt to gain a greater consensus that this person is a troll. Instead you edit warred. Even if this person is a troll, you were still disruptive. What you are involved with is a content dispute, if you think it is a behavior issue you need to get someone uninvolved in the content dispute to see that. 1 != 2 15:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
False. I asked for assitance SEVERAL TIMES. I got pissed off precisely because I was left 1-1 with a troll despite my multiple requests:
  • In "3rd opinion"
  • In article talk page
  • In Russian message board

The current talk in the article does not show you that he in not simply a troll: he is mentaly damaged person incapable of listening to reason.

P.S. And you've just pulled red herring on me. I challenged your assertion that "I am disrupting the article". And you started accusing me. You really have problems with judgement. `'Míkka 15:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Refrain from personal attacks, WP:NPA is not an optional policy. For gods sake act like an admin. 1 != 2 15:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It is a description of the fact: the person persistently refuses to accept arguments. YOu also have a wrong opinion about admins: admins no have special privileges in editing. They have only special tools to execute cerain actions which are not normally available. Admins are neither police, nor superstars, nor superheroes. (and the growing number of admins thinks otherwise and enjoys that) In the current case none of admin function is applicable. `'Míkka 15:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? Where have I erred in judgment? When I said you were disruptive at the article or when I said you resorted to personal attacks? 1 != 2 15:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Admins are expected to follow policy, like everyone else. Get it? 1 != 2 15:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
"like everyone else" - Get it? `'Míkka 15:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been very even handed in this issue. What is more, "like everyone else" does not mean that if some users acts disruptively you can too. 1 != 2 15:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I am calling a troll a troll and I will contine to do so. I don't do this very often, but when I do so I do it in my full senses. Feel free to block me: it is a direct threat: a troll will be called a troll. I will not fill any formal complaints. If a wikipedia cannot defend me from a troll and will prefer to block me for alleged "disruption", any first best trigger-happy admin is very welcome to block me. This will not be my first experience with troll-defenting admins. The first time I really feaked out, but now it will my fully conscious act of civil disobedience against admins devoid of desire to look into matters. If I will not be defended without me crawling on my knees begging to forgive me, then so be it. Life is not all candies. `'Míkka 15:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. About "even handed". Reminds me of an old Jewish joke. Abraham and Chaim are in big quarel. Shouting, tufts of payot in the air. Here comes a reasonale Issac. "Oy vey, Abram and why this ruckus? You go to rabbi, he will judge you" So they go to rabbi, shouthing, tufts of payot ion the air. The rabbi frowns: "Now stop all tha noise, this is not kahal here. Talk your turns, you, Abraham, first". - Abraham: "Rebbe, it was this and that". Rabbi, after long thinking, "You are right, Abraham". - Now Chaim speaks, "No. rebbe, it was such and such". Rabbi, after long thinking and looking into thick books: "You are right, Chaim". - Now Isaac, baffled: "But Rebbe, how can it be possibe: Abraham is right and Chaim is right?" - Rabbi nodes wisely: "And you, Isaac, are right too" ... `'Míkka 15:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Mikkalai, I don't understand what you are trying to achieve here. if you are not prepared to give a brief explanation of the situation as you see it, why should admins take the time to read up the whole history of a dispute in an attempt to infer your position?—This is part of a comment by BrownHairedGirl , which was interrupted by the following:
"why should admins" - exactly. Why should admins do anything that requires usage of brain. They should only run around and block left and right. Go ahead, have more fun. `'Míkka 16:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Mikkai, try WP:CIVIL. Blocking is a last resort, and was only done after you promised further edit-warring after the page had been protcted, and after you had recieved a warning which you had deleted without comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
If you believe that you are being let down and need to be defended from a troll, why will you not either respond to admins who intervene or post to WP:ANI? It's fine want help, but why are you so reluctant to help those who might want to help you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You know, despite some may think, I have a real life, and in big amounts, too. It just so happen that I was away from wikipedia when you started all this blocking exercise. And obiously, you also have a good skill of selective reading. I wrote three times (including right here right above) that I asked for assistance in several places. All help I got is an admin with "big iron on his hip". `'Míkka 16:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Mikka, if you want admin help, you ought to know better than to assume that "Russian message board" is the place to ask for it: try WP:ANI. As to assistance, the article was protected, but you had previously denounced that by saying "police is hated". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, your selective reading is amazing. I wrote in theree places. ANI was not one of them, but it is not the first resort either. My first call about weird editing habits of Ludvikus was at WP:THIRD. While I was patiently waiting only for it to be ignored, a bunch of thoroughly "neutral" admins jumped in, but did nothing useful, so I kissed the WP:ANI goodbye: this was not a matter life and death to dive into several months of litigation. `'Míkka 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't say that I really expected to be thanked for unblocking you but given the caning I have had an ANI for doing so, I really have to say that it is incredibly graceless for you to attack me for it. Thanks a bunch. Spartaz Humbug! 18:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • There is a Russian joke, "No good deed goes unpunished". Jokes aside, I would prefer to remain blocked than to read what you have written. In the case you didn't notice, yours reads just like "Stop beating your wife". Do you need for me to find a wikipedia article about this kind of fallacy? Being accused at various times of being anti-Semite, anti-Romanian, KGB spy, Polonophobe, Russia-hater, etc., I see no extra burden of becoming perceived as a thankless bastard. `'Míkka 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Fine. I won't bother standing up for you again. Spartaz Humbug! —Preceding comment was added at 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • In case you didn't know, you have to "stand up" for wikipedia, not for personally me. If you were thinking that you were doing me a favor, then you are in deeper trouble than I thought. In the case you didn't notice yet, I don't need any freaking favor nor any stupid glory here. `'Míkka 19:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note.

FYI it isn't a joke, but I cannot verify the source. In case you didn't know 'Fortuna' was the Greek god of gambling, hence 'fortunophobia'. Still, I see why you removed this. --Dan|(talk) 10:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Adminitis admins

Mikka, don't make a mistake of trying to argue sense with the Adminitis admins who have not created a single bit of content for a long time if ever. There is a startling correlation between admin's love of the block button and lack of interest in content writing even if this correlation is only 90+ rather than 100%. You should not forget to check WP:RfAdm once in a while and access the candidates. If content writers completely withdraw from anything but main-space, the Wikipedia project space with all the policy pages gets hijacked by users who come here to socialize, self-fulfill and anything else but building an encyclopedia. However much I hate the Wikipedia-space pages I occasionally engage in them for this very reason. Perhaps, you could take it as a suggestion. Please keep up the good work of content writing. You articles encouraged me from my very first days of the Wikipedia. Cheers, comrade :) --Irpen 19:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto what Irpen said. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
And which of the admins commenting on Mikalai's conduct are Adminitis admins? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking in a more general case. I'm not too familiar with this case. In fact, I don't know what the dispute was about. From where I'm standing, Mikkalai engaged in an emotional polemic, but regardless of what its subject was or who was in the right, I don't see why he should be blocked. I think blocks should be used for vandals, propagandists, and for extreme cases of incivility. The Wiki policies should be changed. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I was not engaged in an emotional polemic. I was calling a troll a troll. Every second his edit was trolling (joke, lie, provocation, misdirection, baseless accusation, deliberate falsehood, incitement of discord). Finally I came to a conclusion that the only reason for this behavior is mental deficiency, since I cannot believe that he has any vital interest in Chinese people to defend them from being desscribed as tools in hands of Bolsheviks. `'Míkka 22:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
FUI, the policies have long been changed, see WP:BLOCK. It is that the admins have changed as well, and not to the good side. `'Míkka 22:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

BHG, I did not want to use specific names but since you insist, yes, you've heard me right. But there are more, true enough. --Irpen 18:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are accusing me of being an adminitis admins, you really should have checked my contributions history beforehand. As you will see there, admin work is a tiny proportion of my contributions to wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Foreigners in the Red Army during the Russian Civil War

Since you seem to be staying away from the discussion at Talk:Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War, I was wondering if you would share with me your opinion of moving the article to Foreigners in the Red Army during the Russian Civil War. I have explained my rationale on the Talk Page.

--Richard 00:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be certainly willing to help with Poles in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War or the relevant section. See also Western Rifle Division. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The thing is that I almost never write articles upon a request or order. I start them when I stumble upon a piece of information in a reputable source that is missing in wikipedia. I never write featured articles since I have no political agenda to push and I seldom care for completeness: I expect a wikimiracle happens once my stub is linked from sufficiently many places. However sometimes wikishit happens. `'Míkka 21:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese name

I can't quite make sense of your posting to my discussion page, but I will not use any special page you have created for discussion, as the talk page of the article is sufficient and proper to use for such purposes. Badagnani 04:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Barysaw

Hi, can you please move article to its correct translit name, as per rules of WP:CYR.--Kuban Cossack 10:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Star

Hello, I would give you a barnstar for your keeping your cool and staying logical when others get heated and emotional, but I find the whole barnstar thing silly. Uncle uncle uncle 21:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you are mistaken in the first clause of your sentence. but the second part is agreed. `'Míkka 21:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Nikolai Sharonov

Setting aside whether this is the best transliteration, I have conflicting sources on whether he assumed the post in Poland in somewhere 1937 or in May 1939. And of course Polish sources say almost nothing about his career after or before his posting to Poland. Perhaps you could add a few details? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The Wanderer in Bulgar (totally unrelated to Chinese in Russian Civil War)

I'm sure that, if I think about it, I will realize that I know other Russian Wikipedians but you are the one that I have interacted with most recently so I will ask you for help first. I don't know if you can help because the article mentions Tatar Cyrillic and so I wonder if the external link is in Tatar rather than Russian.

Anyway, this article was nominated for speedy deletion follwed by a {{hangon}} tag. My question is whether mention of this "Tatar rock opera" at this website satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. --Richard 05:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • It is not mentioned there. The page is about the the director. `'Míkka 16:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, but what do you think about the "speedy"? An anon removed the speedy tag but I'm wondering if the article meets speedy criteria. According to you, the opera is not mentioned in the cited Tatarica website so I'm inclined to think that the article has not asserted notability and should be speedied. Do you agree? --Richard 16:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Palace of Culture

It may seem that I have taken an interest in articles about Russia and the Soviet Union. I haven't. I ran across The Wanderer in Bulgar while patrolling CAT:CSD. I just ran across Palace of Culture while browsing random articles.

The question I have for you is about the ending of the article. The sentence "Most Palaces of Culture continue to exist after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but their status, especially the financial one, changed significantly, for various reasons." is lame. What does this really intend to say? I would guess that these are generally run-down and in difficult financial circumstances. If this is true, why not just come out and say that? --Richard 07:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  • First, an unrelated question: is there a particular reason that your signature starts after an empty line? It eats up the vertical screen space: I'd prefer to see more text. I have an impression that vast majority of wikipedians use inline signatures. (BTW, while I was double-checking this observation right now, I was also pleased to notice that a fad of having flashy, popping out sigs faded away). `'Míkka 07:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    De gustibus non disputandam (Latin for "there's no arguing about tastes"); I like to use in-line sigs when I have one paragraph comments. If a comment runs multiple paragraphs, I use a new line for the sig. Yes, this is unorthodox style but there's no guideline saying I shouldn't do this and I like it that way. You are welcome to get rid of the extra line on your Talk Page and I will try to remember that this bothers you but don't get bent out of shape if I forget. --Richard 07:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • You probably wanted to say "tastes differ". I know that, even in English. I explained my reasons. Now that you explained your ways, it makes sense. No need in big guns. `'Míkka 08:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    No need for guns at all, big or small. However, the literal translation of the Latin is "tastes are not (something) to be argued about" which can be translated into colloquial English in any number of ways including "tastes differ" --Richard 08:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, let me rephrase: you would want to say just "tastes differ" next time. If a person knows Latin, translation is unnecessary. If a person does not know Latin, I suspect the reaction from an average person who is not your buddy or swwetheart would be "what a smartass", rather than "Gee, indeed! Muchas gracias, amigo por the advicium (sorry, Tex-Mex is my best Latino)". `'Míkka
  • The text was unfinished. I went shopping for good references, but drifted away. Your guess was partially correct, but not exactly. Basically, there is no more free lunch. First, if the owner (enterprise or local administration) has money or sponsors, it runs great, otherwise ... you know. Second, "customers" have to pay for what was free in Soviet times or pay more for what was cheap. Thanks for reminding. I will fish for some refs. `'Míkka 07:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting non admin AFD closure on Kristin sloan

May I ask you whether it is appropriate for a nominator of an AFD discussion to re-open a closed AFD discussion on the grounds that he doesn't like or disagrees with the outcome? And for that self-same nominator to do so without informing the person who closed the discussion? As a non-administrator, I am entitled to close afd discussions where there is a backlog and where the consensus is clear. In this case you nominated the article and two people proposed keeping. Of those, one was an anonymous IP who gave no policy reason but mentioned she had appeared in a commercial; the other was an administrator who cited reliable quality sources attesting to the notability of the person concerned. The five days had passed; there was a backlog on the page and I closed it as a keep.

I am well aware that the policy on non administrators closing afd discussions states: "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as unambiguous as you thought.". I am equally aware the afd process must be done without bias, fear or favour - and to re-open an afd discussion which you yourself nominated represents a very clear and unambiguous conflict of interest. Yet you did this without any reference on my talk page, the article's talk page or even the AFD discussion's talk page. Could you please tell me why you consider the result not to be "as unambiguous" as I clearly thought it to be?

Your actions led to another user passing comment before the discussion was reviewed by another administrator who relisted it for a consensus to appear. That's fine with me. I don't have strong views either way on whether this should stay or go (if I did have strong views I would not participate in a non-admin closure to clear the backlog). But I would appreciate you explaining to me whether it is appropriate for a nominator to re-open afd debates about their own nominations; whether that should be done without any reference to the person who closed the debate; and why you feel consensus wasn't clear. Thank you for your time. B1atv 07:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There are reasons why closures of AFD debates are generally assigned to admins. In your case you simply don't know the rules. In particular, you wrongly counted two votes of "keep" rather than one, i.e, there is no nearly consensus. What is more, please notice that the second admin did not chose the article to "delete", because there is 2:1 "consensus" for deletion now. Instead, he relisted it, for more opinions, because 3 persons cannot decide the fate of the page. Finally, as I have noticed, you are editing since August only, so I would strongly recommend you to exercise more caution in judgement, leaving it for more seasoned editors and better spend more time in writing and editing articles. `'Míkka 07:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)::
I didn't "count any votes" because AFD is not a vote. I considered the arguments put forward by the proponents of the "keep". Also, you say three persons can't decide the fate of the page - I suggest you review past AFD discussions where it is clear that only two people have decided the fate of pages. I have no problem with the article being relisted; my problem is with the method. So I will ask again, as you have decided not to answer my questions, for which I really would value an answer: 1. Is it appropriate for an administrator to re-open afd discussions which they nominated? 2. Whether it is appropriate for the person re-opening an afd discussion to give no explanation for this on any of the relevant talk pages or edit summary? and 3. Why you feel consensus wasn't clear. If I'm reading you correctly you state this is because only three people had participated. Is that correct? B1atv 08:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
If you didn't count votes, it is even stranger how you figured out "clear consensus". 1: false question, of type "did you stop beating your wife?" I didn't "re-open": I reverted inmproper action. 2: see 1; as for reverting, you had questions, you got an answer. If you think it was rude and want to teach me manners, why don't you say it straight, rather than play shrink ro kindergarten teacher? Since you are seem like a beginner shrink, here is an advice: people hate when they are pressed into admitting their mistakes. Just tell what you feel and you will be surprized to see how people easily apologize. Just don't make a big drama: if you run into a bully or a stubborn blockhead, your words will change nothing (in wikipedia you may complain somewhere at WP:DISPUTE) and for a normal person a brief direct word is usually enough. 3. Yes, because only 3 people participated and opinions differed. the issue was notability. As you know, WP:NOTABILITY are guidelines, but it does not mean they must be lightly ignored. The guidelines are written in odrer not to repeat the same arguments over and over again. At the same time, their applicability cannot be judged by a whim of 2-3 editors or a single admin. Finally, I am repeating you again, please do more writing wikipedia articles rather than policing. `'Míkka 16:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it was a bit inconsiderate not to provide a better explanation of why the closure was reverted. However, people's styles differ and Mikka is right about the benefits of using a straightforward approach. As for his point #2 above, I'm not sure if he's claiming to be a bully, a stubborn blockhead or if that was actually a roundabout way of apologizing. In any event, I think too much time has been wasted here and everyone ought to just "move on" and "build an encyclopedia". --Richard 16:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
People who love digging dirt, pushing political agendas, and picking fights may very easily convince themselves that I am an arrogant blockhead. People whose main purpose is to write encyclopedia find me quite cooperative. Also, I have no respect to people whose 90% of work is policing wikipedia. I talk lenghts to B1atv for the sole reason based on WP:AGF: I do no exclude the posibility that this is just a separate account for an otherwise regular editor to do mopping job. Many people here freely admit this and I see a number of reasons both for doing so and for not admitting this openly. `'Míkka 17:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Reverting in this instance caused a re-opening (and re-opening is the term used in the rules about non-admin closure). You don't wish to address it, fine. You have no respect for me, fine. I think you're methods (not your actions, but your methods) are offensive. Fine. Your lack of respect for me is shown in your responses here and your methods which led to this section on your user talk page. How on earth you got to be an administrator with your attitude is beyond me. Fortunately there are many more decent editors and administrators on Wikipedia to make this experience easy to brush off. I just hope our paths don't cross in future in the course of working on Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned this is the end of the matter - your rudeness is such that trying to understand what you think I did wrong is never going to happen. B1atv 06:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

AVL

Please pop over to AVL tree talk page - re "Explanation". Toby Douglass 17:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story

Hi. I got your note. Apparently it isn't OK to link article pages with project pages. I would just like to know weather the content of Wikipedia: Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story would now be good enough to be published as an article. I've attempted to do so once before but at the time there was much less information on the subject and the movie wasn't as well known. Thank you for your time. U5K0 19:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Russian words of English origin

Yes I will add a references. A few of the etymologies I am taking directly from the Wikipedia articles themselves, especially the ones I can't find an origin for. The definitions are from my own sources, unless I cannot find the word, then I use the Wikipedia article for a definition. The etymologies I have added will be double-checked with the Wikipedia articles at a later date, (since I don't too much time to work on articles), but the references I am using are very reliable. Thank you. WordsExpert 23:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic dance music

I noticed you reverting the edits by User:Bungalowbill. He started a move discussion at Talk:Electronic dance music if you wish to participate. Wickethewok 15:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dance music

The last discussion regarding the "dance music" article resulted in a consensus regarding that it should refer to the modern electronic form, and that the content which was there should be moved to "dancing music". This has since been reverted with no discussion, which makes it a wrong revert and this is why i am changing this back to the state which it was agreed upon on the last discussion. if you wish to have a different way, please start a discussion and do not just revert the articles. Bungalowbill 15:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the consensus. You didn't read the discussion carefully. Please explain what makes you think that "dance music" is only "electronic dance music" `'Míkka 15:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
i do not believe that "dance music" is only "electronic dance music". But i do however believe when most people say "Dance music" they are refering to "electronic dance music" most commonly.
This is also shown by the fact that hundreds/thousands of articles link to "dance music" as their genre (articles on songs, artists and albums). These are really meant to be "electronic dance music", but that phrase is never used, and so they link to dance music.
My proposal is that EDM be moved to dance music. At the top of the article there should be a clear note that it refers to 'e.' dance music and link to the "dancing music" article for anyone looking for that information.
i feel this system would work much better, and i don't believe many people will go to the "dance music" article and expect to find it about the traditional accompanyment (sp?).
I am afraid you are mistaken about the number of people's opinion about the term "dance music" `'Míkka 16:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it not better to do that than change all those articles which link to "dance music"? Bungalowbill 16:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Note

Hey Mikka, before speedely deleting a category and mass renaming you may have thought of talking to the person who made it, don't you think so? There are policies to follow about renaming things, and they require five days of discussion if I am not wrong. But OK, I agree with the move (not the manner though). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bonni

As far as I can tell, Mikka, this is Bonaparte (or, in any case, a proxy). He's been marauding for quite a while now. Dahn 18:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

blkd. `'Míkka 21:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Khan (band)

  • no, this band is a no-brainer keep with the presence of Hillage and Pyle among others. a hidden note will not be necessary. if you feel you must pre-emptively protest deletion when no-one has tried to delete it, add a note to the talk page. tomasz. 11:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
fair enough, i know that some people can indeed be very rash in terms of speedy'ing people. we appear to be in agreement anyway. i've added a note to the talk page myself detailing three very good keep rationales per WP:MUSIC and an All Music Guide link in case anyone gets any ideas. cheers, tomasz. 16:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Continental shelf articles

Hi Mikkalia. You removed a stub tag from Outer Continental Shelf article today. Actually, I think stub is justified since the article is extremely US-centric, and as noted on the Talk page, only defines the details of one of the four regions of the US OCS. (All info seems to have come from a single US gvmt page on only the Gulf Coast region of the US OCS. I merely wikified the article, and added comment about need for improvement.) See the talk page. Thanks. N2e 00:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are awesome Mikkalai. The work you did on the several continental shelf articles today has vastly improved them. I had stumbled on the Outer Continental Shelf article a couple of weeks ago and had tried to wikify a few items on a, to that point, unwikified and unreferenced article. I see why the proper noun OCS must remain US-centric. You have done ten times as much as I did and have really made OCS into a quality Wikipedia article, plus added and fixed several others. Kudos! N2e 04:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

ID Sniper rifle

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article ID Sniper rifle, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Arthur 18:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of ID Sniper rifle

ID Sniper rifle, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that ID Sniper rifle satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ID Sniper rifle and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of ID Sniper rifle during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Arthur 18:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the Erdos Number categories

Recently the categories related to Erdos Number were deleted. There are discussions and debates across several article talk pages (e.g. the Mathematics WikiProject Talk page. I've formally requested a deletion review at this deletion review log item. Pete St.John 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Mathematical Chemistry, Theoretical Chemistry, Computational Chemistry, etc

Moved to Talk:Mathematical chemistry. `'Míkka>t 02:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Russia

Please discuss whether it should be part of the disambiguation in Talk:Soviet Russia (disambiguation).--Keerllston 03:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of phobia articles

I have undeleted Scotophobia, an article you deleted, because before it was turned into an article, it was a valid redirect to an IMO much more legitimate phobia. I also noticed you deleted two other phobia-related articles, porphyrophobia and gymnophobia, without going through any process. I'm not planning to undelete either of them because I believe you were ignoring all rules and I agree with that policy. I'm more curious why you deleted gymnophobia - if it is a copyright violation as a cut-and-paste from nudity, then doesn't that make all sub-articles written in summary style copyright violations? Or am I missing something? Graham87 12:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK fair enough. The phobia articles have been a mess for a very long time - I remember reading Wikipedia's list of phobias about two years ago and also getting that impression. Graham87 01:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA

You may wish to look at the listing on my user subpage. If you look at every article that I created, including the one that you cited, as soon as this oversight was pointed out to me, I went back (for example see [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] to name a few) and made the appropriate citations. SkierRMH (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Last 7000 edits

For the record, I only have 4448 edits (4614 as the total on my prefs page, presumably that's including deleted) - so I'm confused what you mean by "last 7000 edits" and am wondering if you were looking at someone else's contribution list. —Random832 02:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


Notability of Haranga

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Haranga, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Haranga seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Haranga, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree and have removed the tag. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ice Wall

What the hell is your problem? That section of the article was there for ages, and everyone agrees that it should be included. IT’S ON THER FORUM/WEBSITE – LOOK IT UP. Why do you stalk me over Wikipedia? Is it because you have thoughts about children? Why can’t you just accept that I am a valued contributor in the wikipedia community - you’re just jealous because you can never earn the love and respect that I have gained, you can’t intimidate people into linking you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatcud (talk • contribs) 23:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Moldovan language

With this edit you removed a sentence that I --- not some banned user --- inserted in the article. On the other hand I agree with you that we should provide a link to a EU website, although despite my search all I have right now is a couple of Romanian newspapers, of which I chose one that had a (poor) English translation. As far as I understand, the problem is that the EU documents mentioned there do not explicitly say that Moldovan language does not exist, but rather they no longer use the term "Moldovan language" in their wording. For this reason it might be hard to find an explicit EU document. If this turns out to be a permanent situation I will agree to the removal of that sentence. — AdiJapan ☎ 16:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


Countries entries deleted from Ice sculpture

You deleted two whole sections of the article on Sweden and Finland giving no reason for doing so. Can you please explain? thanks --Dia^ (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Liberation News (Internationalist)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Liberation News (Internationalist), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Duncan (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious...

What happened with Khoikoi, did he get tired to hunt for Bonny? Did he get sick of the crap going on on Eastern European coutries? -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My RFA (Random832)

Thank you, Mikkalai, for participating in my RFA, which passed 35/1/0. I look forward to helping out. If you have any concerns or suggestions/advice, my talk page is always open. Thank you for raising the concern that I don't spend enough time editing in article space, I've been trying to do more content editing recently actually. —Random832 14:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced tag

Hi - thanks for pointing that out. I'll avoid adding it to stub articles in future. (I did know not do that once, but in my haste to tag unreferenced articles, I'd forgotten.) Terraxos (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. [citation needed] is a far less obtrusive template and more specific anyway, so I'll try to use that one where appropriate instead. Terraxos (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your unprotection of Moldova

Not sure if this is the right course of action, since other users seems to have picked up the edit war after unprotection as seen from the page history --WinHunter (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Scholars in Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi Mikkalai -- I have a question about Category:Scholars in Eastern Orthodoxy which you created; I posted at category talk: Scholars in Eastern Orthodoxy. --Lquilter (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at yourself

Read all the comments on your talk page man. Everyone hates you. They hate the way you think your king and delete all their edits. Who gave you the power to say what is right or wrong? If Jimbo knew what you were doing he would turn in his grave. When are you going to restore my Ice Wall section of the Flat Earth Society page - I have given you my reasons for restoring it, and all you can do is whine like a baby about your personal problems. If you have a problem with my edits then I'm more than open to constructive criticism or help, but all you have done is rejected my efforts. Why don't you help me make an Ice Wall section which meets your standards? I would enjoy collaborating with you on such a project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatcud (talk • contribs) 20:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I was wondering if you could provide some justification for blocking this user; I haven't investigated very deeply, but it looks like you were embroiled in a dispute with that user on Moldova, and then unprotected the article only after blocking him. east.718 at 23:35, November 19, 2007

I am not friend with user:Nergaal we actually had a dispute before and his behaviour can be abrupt sometimes and his editing style is on the edge of WP:BOLD, but I don't think Mikkalai proceeded in a correct manner because he was involved in another block against Nergaal that was overturned because of lack of impartiality, and especially that he had a dispute with Nergaal on content on Moldova I think he should have recused himself from the case and asked other uninvolved admin to take action (IMHO) -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Russian Civil War‎

You reverted my edit of 19 November 2007. That was incorrect, imho. If you read the article it is clear that the section "Geography and chronology" was originally part of "Overview" and has been subsequently split off. It does not 'work' as a section on its own and rightly should be a subsection of "Overview".

If you agree would you care to revert your reversion?

82.24.213.54 (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no strong logical connection between the two sections. The second one is quite independent so there is no reason to complicate the hierarchy of sections. `'Míkka>t 23:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It is the loss from "Overview" that concerns me, as that section now does not contain the end of the conflict (which is in "Geography and chronology"). An "Overview" which stops short and a subsequent section that, despite its title, contains little geography and the finale of the conflict does not work. I think the map is the misleading point which inspired the split.82.24.213.54 (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
After a closer consideration I agree that the sections in question is an unnecessary split at all. I will try to merge them together. `'Míkka>t 15:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

move reversion

Hi! In regards to this reversion, why would this not be in the main article space like any other article on an independent film? • Lawrence Cohen 00:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice you've also moved it back with deletions several times. I don't quite understand why this should be under Wikipedia space. Thanks. There was also an ANI I began here for clarification on this earlier, which I'll update. Sorry. Please let me know? • Lawrence Cohen 00:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Russia

Could you explain why you changed Soviet Russia in the talk page? thankyou.--Keerllston 19:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert?

I'm puzzling over this revert of an edit I did. Per WP:REVERT, reverts aren't supposed to be used for good faith edits, which mine certainly was. Further, you provided no explanation of why you were reverting.

The point of my edit was clear: with more than 300 bots per year approved, why would we want a page to list only one? So I continue not to understand your revert. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer that I add the other 299 or so bots; unfortunately, I have more important things to do with my time, as I suspect you do, and all of the other editors I know. If you do in fact have plans to add the other bots, I apologize and will certainly give you time to do so; if you have no plans, I'd really like to know why you think it's advantageous to have exactly one bot listed on this page. Do you really think that a bunch of other editors are going to show up and fix the page? Or that somehow the page is improved with just one bot listed, rather than potentially misleading a naive reader into thinking that somehow that bot was particularly special? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking Anittas

Would you like to see a comment like, "I knew that Russians are a different race of mammals"? Do you think that should be allowed? I'm puzzled by your position. -- AdrianTM (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't assume good faith in case somebody makes racist (or ethnicist-nationalist, or however you want to call) remarks, is warned about them and he continues the same behavior. His veiled attack against Bucharest and its inhabitants shows the racist roots of his behavior, of course you can choose to read what he wrote about Bucharest and "Asian culture and genetics" of its people as "referenced", but if you take into consideration his previous declarations it's pretty clear what he means, see in talk:Bucharest for his weaseling (in my opinion) explanation, and see his reply in [15] "I think that Muntenians do have a choice. They can denounce Bucharest, orientalism, and abuse against women, children and animals." where he implies that "Muntenians" condone abuse against women, children and animals and that they should "denounce Bucharest" -- whatever that means, and he apparently has something against "orientalism" which Muntenians should denounce (I'm not sure what Asian or oriental people are supposed to feel when they read that). Are you really fooled by his explanations? -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy this logic. It takes two to drag bickering. If y'all strictly stick to discussing article content rather than how bad an editor is, you woldn't see these antics of Anittas. Both morons and smart people may be quite pain in the ass, and one has to treat these categories differently. `'Míkka>t 06:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, to the obvious (IMHO) evidence the most concerning thing is that the user didn't show any remorse and no sign of willing to change his behavior. Of course you can slap him on the wrist with a week ban or so, if that's what you think that will solve the problem, but I foresee him using more insidious ways to make other similar attacks. BTW, even using the simple term of "Muntenian" can be done in offensive way, in Romanian it can have a normal use like "I am Muntenian" (rarely used actually because nobody but Anittas gives a shit about that) but if it's used as "Why do you listen to that Muntenian" is just as offensive as saying "hey, that's a Jew who is talking" since of course you don't need to appeal to the nationality of the speaker when you make a point (just to clarify the meanings a little bit). At this point I'm sick and tired of this case, and you can do your own Crusade against banning him in peace if you consider that's the best way to go, I explained my reasons pretty well I think. -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Now it's my turn to not being able to follow your logic, how is hunting to remove all his offensive posts going to solve his behavior problems? He is going to make more veiled attacks like the one in Talk:Bucharest that he claimed was sourced and even Romanians defended that as sourced (as laughable as that is) as you can see in ANI board. Sorry, I don't go to any Romanian notice board, I didn't even know that such thing exists, nor I'm interested to go to such place. -- AdrianTM (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Green Party of Ontario

Please be gentler with your warnings. I stopped reverting a while ago. J (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Anittas

Hi Mikka. I am glad you decided to contact me before unblocking this user. There was a strong consensus among the admins commenting that Anittas' conduct had gone far beyond what was excusable for any editor, regardless of what contributions he had made. Any unilateral unblocking you make would be against this consensus, and I suggest you post a message to ANI and ask for further input if you truly think Anittas deserves yet another final chance. I have limited net access at present as I am moving house, but will do my best to check back in. My recommendation is very firmly against unblocking Anittas. Virulent racism and abhorrent comments are not mitigated by "good" edits. Please do me the favour of linking to this comment if you do post to ANI as my access is limited as I mentioned. Thanks. Neil ☎ 09:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there is obviously no consensus for an indef block.. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mikkalai, as we are many users who support the unblock of Anittas (Turgidson, TSO1D, Dpotop, Dc76), shouldn't we do something?? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Spime

Good morning. You closed an AfD on the article Spime as Delete, Replace by Redirect. The diff of your close is here, and the debate in full is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spime. Periodically, I doublecheck categories at CAT:AFD to ensure that all debates listed by category are open and, in the course of one such review, I removed the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING template from this debate, as it had been closed. As a result, I was listed as the closing editor - so, when a Deletion Review was opened on the closure, I was notified and not you. The deletion review is now open, and I encourage you to participate. Thanks, and I apologize for any confusion. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA - thanks

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 38/1/0! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Siberian Uprising

You may be interested in this article; I see there is much material on ru wiki - unfortunately I cannot easily translate it; perhaps you could? PS. If you have a better idea for the name of the article, don't hesitate to act on it. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

While expanding, I run into the following as supporters of the insurgents, but can't find them on en wiki: Mikołaj Czernyszewski i przebywający na emigracji w Londynie Aleksander Hercen z organizacji "Ziemia i wola". Any links for me? PS. Remember our old discussion about Russian pesants escaping to Poland? I have scans of few 18th century documents regardind that, do you want me to @ them to you? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 01:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks. Another name that needs to be decyphered: Mikołaj Sierno-Sołowjewicz. Any ideas? Thanks! PS. Also, I am trying to decypher to location of the battle (Miszychna). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 02:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sambure

If he is a Bonaparte proxy, he should be blocked indefinitely on sight, not merely reverted. El_C 18:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bonaparte

Re. this - I see you've now reverted your changes. Thank you. However, I'd rather this was left to an uninvolved clerk to deal with, if that's okay - Alison ❤ 02:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No you did not do it correctly, cases are moved to an appropriate section for a few days, and then archived, and we keep track of all checks on WP:RFCU/Case. This case could have been lost if I hadn't remarked the two horizontal lines on the main RFCU page. Before calling wikilawyering, you might want to have asked why I reverted you and moved that case. -- lucasbfr talk 02:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Kool down. I've noticed this myself already and backed off without y'all. And you sould have written in thee dit summary in the first place rather than reverting me wordlessy as a first best vandal. The page does not have a slightest indication that it is to be handled accoring to a special procedure (btw which does not require to be a mensa member or a "clerk"). You guys really have to take some pills against brainless bureaucratitis (or, as you call it here, wikilawyering). `'Míkka>t 21:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of European exonyms

I've left a comment. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Panty line

I see that you have reverted the redirect of the article, and I am sure you have pretty good reasons to do so. I was putting together four closely related articles with a lot of overlapping information together - Panty line, Bikini line, Bikini waxing and Brazilian waxing. This initiative provides a more comprehensive view of the subjects, keeps searching for relevant information easier, and makes for a more wholesome article. Before I re-merge the article into Bikini waxing, if I do, I would really like to know what warrants a separate article for Panty line instead of a sub-section. Please, respond to my talk page, or the article talk page. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! I missed the point. A bikini line is about what's visible outside the garment, and a panty line is about the garment itself coming visible. Right. My apologies. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Balti

Hello. I saw you participated in the discussion on the move of Balti. I think we can proceed with the move now. User Deskimasu said there was no consensus reached, however the only more or less relevant arguments against th emove I saw were from AjaxSmack, although even this user was rather referring to general modification (enduced in error by TSO1D bad faith manoeuvres) and not to the move concerning Balti. So to me, almost nothing was said against the move of Balti proper. I would appreciate to have your feedback on this. Thanks in advance. Moldopodo (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Chiroptophobia

Dear Mikkalai: I was wondering if you could help explain the improper derivation of this word. As you request, I posted the question to the discussion page for the Fear of bats article. Thxs, Chiralsen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiralsen (talk • contribs) 19:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of TextTwist

TextTwist, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that TextTwist satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TextTwist and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of TextTwist during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Oren0 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Disambiguation Just for Wiki Articles, NOT Outside Links, etc

Re: your reverting Gathering_of_Eagles_(disambiguation). Wikipedia:Disambiguation states: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural choice of title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to the different article pages that could use essentially the same term as their title." So my deleting those NON-wiki sources you later reverted was quite proper. Carol Moore 03:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Anittas II

"Anittas must be banned from communicating with certain editors" - what? He could not comport himself civilly with all editors, and so is not permitted to edit. It was clear he could not, just as it was clear his comments were unquestionably racist (how on earth can you say they were not with a straight face?).

The trend around Wikipedia is (rightly) moving towards stopping poisonous squabbling tendentious editors from continuing to sour the atmosphere for everyone else. It is not a difficult task to work with others in a civil manner, and yet Anittas was patently unable to do so. He had countless chances. The consensus (ignoring Eurocopter tigre, who is now trying to troll me by having featured articles I worked on defeatured - admirable!) was firmly in favour of an indefinite block. At this point, I would suggest asking for further input on ANI, as I don't think either of us are going to change our minds here. Neil ☎ 10:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice: Spime

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Spime. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 19:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Spime DRV notice was part of my DRV notice tagging. Most closers/deleting admins participate at DRV, but that's fine if you don't want to comment. It probably isn't necessary in this case, anyway. Best. -- Jreferee t/c 20:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of references in barouche and britzka articles

Please see my comments on the talk pages of these articles Talk:barouche Talk:britzka. Fbarw (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Now that I have reviewed the help pages on external links, I see your point. Frankly, I'm glad to give up the tedious task of trying to find and cite information sources for existing articles. I started doing this because of the many articles I saw containing templates asking for external sources. Some of these are not much more than extended definitions in one or two sentences, which could be sourced by links to several dictionaries -- not very helpful to users. The references I added would have helped me or someone else to expand the articles, since many of them do contain encyclopedic information. However, I'll stop pursuing this line and get back to my preferred job of placing helpful additions in existing texts. Fbarw (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

David Howell

Hi there. I would appreciate any comments you have on the David Howell article, would you support an alternative wording? --ZincBelief (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Martinlh

Hi Mikka. Based on this, would you consider unblocking? It seems that the user was trying to address BLP issues all along, just not doing it in the right way. Maybe you could note that they are not a vandal, but are inexperienced with how Wikipedia works. Carcharoth (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Heather and Jimmy's Party in San Francisco

I just received next message from Facebook group "Heather and Jimmy's 50 Party Club" (Jimmy is Jimmy Wales):

The invitation below is for the last 50 parties party of the year in San Francisco this Friday hosted by our dear friend Marc Bodnick from Elevation Partners which Jimmy and I will both attend.

'You are invited to the official Heather and Jimmy 50 Party Club party for the Bay Area this is a party for Bay Area folks in the Wikipedia, iCommons, and Creative Commons communities.

The party will take place on Friday November 30 and will be at the 3rd Street Grill in San Francisco at 695 Third Street (at Townsend).

Time: 8-11:30pm.

In the spirit of free content and community, there will be an open bar.

Please RSVP to Julie Hamilton at julie at elevation dot com.

All invitees are welcome to bring a guest.'

Please pass to interested persons.

I most likely will not attend.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Radiant!/Classification of admins

The classes refer only to admins' user names, not the admins themselves. Total Nonsense implies that the user name contains no extractable meaning (e.g., TSO1D) – nothing else. The page is humorous and ironic because of this, or at least is meant to be, and makes a wry point about the degree to which anyone can contribute to Wikipedia. In summary, the categories are not meant to be insulting. Cheers, GracenotesT § 04:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh! I prefer your interpretation of this one, Mikkalai, classic attack page or what? . Thanks, SqueakBox 05:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Not an attack page, but people must be careful with jokes in multricultural environment. One person's joke, other person's mortal insult. `'Míkka>t 05:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It's totally a user-choice page (in userspace, no less). Just relax a bit and allow everyone their fun : ) - jc37 05:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to waste your time to watch so that some joker don't add you into the category "virus"? May be I am lucky, but my very fist check had shown that WhisperToMe did not add themselves here. You can still have fun without potentially insulting categories. `'Míkka>t 05:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Well I think given recent events this kind of attack against admins is just very unwarranted, maybe my British sense of humour doesn't understand American jokes. I am very aware of living in this modern multicultural world of which wikipedia is a good example but right now who is going to defend the humanity of admins if not a simple editor. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hm, we've gone straight to assuming bad faith about the creation of the classification? It might just be me, but I find it odd for a person to be offended that someone else could possibly be offended in a clearly good-natured situation such as this one. Personally, I wouldn't mind be classified as a virus in such a scheme: looking for sinister symbolism where none exists is a paranoid task. It is necessary at times, but certainly not for this page. GracenotesT § 05:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Bad faith? Nope, just brainlessness. "Odd?" What can be more odd than a huge bunch of people working free of charge some seem 24/7. I will not be surprized that oddball factor is order of magnitudes higher than average. And even if you are are a paranoid this does not mean that nobody is after you :-) "This page": A am objecting for two small sections of this page, and I tell you a secret: before classifying the two offensive the first thought was "resource and sagacity failed here". They are a kind of mean and spiteful humor, the kind of encyclopedia dramatica if you know what I mean. `'Míkka>t 06:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If someone (say myself) were classified as a virus, that might be considered an attack. But classifying User:Viridae under "Virus" when viridae is the family name for viruses is very different (similarly, a user named after a mouse or a gerbil wouldn't object to being classified as a rodent, but someone not so named might).
Context is just as important as the words being said (or moreso, in some cases). EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Obviously you are not aware of the beginnings: I am objecting the categories titled "Boring" and "Nonsense". I am not a complete idiot yet and I am aware that names are classified by their face value. There is a thin line for jokes with names. While Jc37 may be happy to be classified as virus, how would you like to be classified as "Slut", because you are "evula" and I am not, and "eevula" is "big vulva" in Damara. `'Míkka>t 07:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Brainlessness? - jc37 07:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Bad faith? Or stupid joke? You think it is stupid? `'Míkka>t 07:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
My question was in response to your choice of words above.
But to respond, yes, I think you are severely over-reacting. If anyone had/has an issue with where/how their name was listed, they can (oh no!) move or remove their name. I think everyone involved, as each actually is an admin, likely has the wherewithal to make that determination. - jc37 07:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Obviously you didn't read this whole thread. You think wrong: you are making a logical error assuming that everyone metioned is actually personally involved and probably assuming that thus will be always. As for overreacting, it i you who is overreacting by reverting me, acting as a kid who was robbed of his catapult. `'Míkka>t 07:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I've read the thread. I've seen you now be uncivil in general, and make unfounded accusations.
I've got an idea, though. Since you're so concerned, how about if you go through the edit history of the page, and find out who hasn't added themselves to the sections you have issues with. And then drop them a note to see if they would rather they weren't added.
In the meantime, good luck with proving that anyone (but yourself) is "attacking" anyone via this page. You know, WP:AGF isn't just an abbreviation. Assuming good faith should be a way of life here. I haven't looked deep into your contribution history, but in my opinion you're just a little too trigger-happy, just a little too eager to presume bad faith of the editors involved. I'm hoping that this is merely in response to some stress in your life and not how you generally deal with your fellow Wikipedians. - jc37 07:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
After this edit I had a srong temptation to expand the category "Lupine" with subcategory "Bitches". It is quite insightful about wikipedia to see when in one place some think that calling a person Muntenian is a racial slur, while in other place labelling someone as "boring" is a friendly joke. `'Míkka>t 16:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny

I have left you a message on Talk:Organic_matter about Soil organic matter. I can't leave you a message on Talk:Soil organic matter because it redirects, which is what my message is about. --Paleorthid (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Request

I created Sri Lankan Tamil slang, it is entirely OR without any references. It should go Taprobanus (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

AFD it Taprobanus (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
OK Taprobanus (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your guidance needed at Template talk:Chabad

Hi Mikka: There has been a sharp increase in the debate at Template talk:Chabad#Controversy Again! as part of ongoing differences of views between opposing editors, some of whom are pro-Chabad POV warriors and others. If you could drop by and give this matter your consideration and input it may help a lot because the way things are unfolding it looks like it may be headed for more serious arbitration which can hopefully be avoided. Thanks a lot, IZAK (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 14 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eoörnis Pterovelox Gobiensis, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

M. Balinsky's census of 1857

Could you perhaps write more about this census, and the researcher who carried it? Are its results online? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Some about 1857 census. Balinsky looks like this one, he was intersted in Lithuanian statistics, but see no relation to 1857. Will look for more `'Míkka>t 23:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 51 17 December 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: ArbCom elections, holiday publication 
Former Wikimedia employee's criminal history detailed Möller resigns from board, joins foundation as employee 
Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge WikiWorld comic: "Tractor beam" 
News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
WikiProject Report: Plants Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[16][17]

Grand Hustle Records

I noticed you semi-protected Grand Hustle Records. There seems to be a pattern of some long-term sly hoax and/or spam campaign going on there and other related pges. I'm trying to piece together all the accounts that have been used here. Maybe a checkuser would help unearth other accounts that have been used to insert misinformation? I'm pretty certain all the names listed there are the same editor based on contribution overlap, especially deleted articles. Unfortunately, hip hip music isn't my strongest academic subject, so it's tough for me to know what's accurate...Any advice or help would be appreciated. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me--I totally agree with your suggested course of action...If you weren't aware, following my blocks of Brrwawall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) & Reww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), I've recently solicited help at WikiProject_Music/Noticeboard (and subsequently WikiProject Hip hop) and also got a little feedback from a short ANI thread. — Scientizzle 17:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Kirgiz

Please stop all your moving for a few moments to respond to my question on Talk:Kirgiz SSR. The RM was to move it to Kirghiz, and "Kirgiz" was never brought up as an alternative. Why have you chosen this spelling? --Golbez (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooperhoofd's edits

"Wikipedia's Japanese empresses and Himiko explain -- but without identifying the source -- that Jingū was removed from the official list of Emperors in the 19th century" - in wikipedia there is the rule that wikipedia articles are not valid sources for other wikipedia articles. If you see some claim in a wikipedia article (as you wrote "without identifying sources), you must request the sources from the authors of "Japanese empresses" and "Himiko" You may also want to consult with authors of List of Emperors of Japan and references therein. `'Míkka>t 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Míkka --
This in-line footnote could have been put on the talk page. In other circumstances, I would have put it there; but the process of moving the page and cross-referencing consequences in articles which should have shown as linked (but which did not) ... was a tiresome frustration which caused me to place the mention of this unsourced fact in this specific location.
I didn't know about a Wikipedia convention that wiki-articles are not acceptable as references -- but in point of fact, who's kidding who? The majority of sources are not specified. If I had included this specific in-line footnote without specifying the link another wiki-article, it would have raised not even a passing comment. Indeed, if I hadn't made such a point of being transparent so that I could ask questions after the holdiays, I think it likely that I would have escaped the close scrutiny of Endroit.
What I learn from this is that my number one priority should be to "keep below the radar" -- to avoid attracting attention from contributors to Wikipedia whose sole pleasure seems to be in finding a chance to shout out "Gotcha!!"
In this context, why do I think it unlikely that Endroit would feel at all inclined to look at my list of contributions. My work is more heavily endowed with in-line citations and specific references than most. I'm shaking my head, wondering "What went on here today?" --Ooperhoofd (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Also please explain why you deleted the text "Her name would have been Okinagatarashi-Hime (息長帯比売) before she assumed control of the reigns powers relinguished by her husband-emperor." `'Míkka>t 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Míkka --
This small question is easily resolved: Then sentence you ask about was not deleted.
As it happens, the introductory paragraph comes to a rational close with the in-line footnote reference to Meiji era changes in what was the then-conventional list of Emperors of Japan.
The following paragraph incorporates text about what is knowable in the contexts of the figures who are now considered to have been "legendary emperors." These Emperors preceded Empress Jingu. At that point, the moved sentence introduces what would have been a pre-accession name if it weren't for the Meiji rescript which decreed that Jingū was yet another legendary figure about whom too little can be verifiably known.
The next paragraph then moves from that nexus into a chronology of of the years until here son did acceed as Emperor Ōjin.
The revised text follows:
"...She is said to have served as Regent and de facto leader of Japan from the time of her husband's death in 209 until her son Emperor Ōjin acceded to the throne in 269.[1]
No firm dates can be assigned to this empress's life or reign. Jingū is regarded by historians as a "legendary empress" because of the paucity of information about her, which does not necessarily imply that no such person ever existed. Rather, scholars can only lament that, at this time, there is insufficient material available for further verification and study. It is believed that her name would have been Okinagatarashi-hime (息長帯比売) before she assumed [control of the reigns of] powers which would have been relinquished by her husband-emperor."
Does this answer the question you had in mind? Or was there something else? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Endroit?Moving on ... maybe

NOTE:The previous "conversations" are not worth re-visiting. I can see no purpose in further memorializing failed efforts to communicate effectively.--Ooperhoofd (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for this feedback. It does help clarify my thinking. I appreciate your apology, but it necessarily focuses on what you imagine you might have done a little differently. What I really need here is to figure out how I can act differently -- and I'd like to ask you, please, to bear with me a little bit while I sort through this in a characteristically slow fashion.
A priori, let's temporarily agree not be distracted by anything to do with Endroit. Let's simply agree that he was right and I was wrong -- simple, easy, clear. That having been said, it doesn't matter to me (or I wish it mattered less).
I was completely blindsided by an attack I didn't understand. There was no way to stop the pernicious attack. It appeared that four hours of work was about to be undone by someone whose motivations were so far removed from Jomon period Japanese history as to be indistinguishable from berserk action. The prospect of a post hoc apology would have been meaningless at that point. It feels rather barren now.
What could I have done differently ...?
In my working context, User:Endroit was an unanticipated interloper. My focus of attention was summarized by the following quotation from a Nobel laureate in chemistry:
One never notices what has been done; one can only see what remains to be done. -- Marie Curie
When User:Endroit atttack popped up out of nowhere (as far as I was concerned), I was focusing on finishing a task which had already taken longer than I'd wanted. I was really wanting to rush out to replace the last of the milk I'd used up hours before ... so I could make myself a much-deserved cup of tea. Literally, the thirst for tea and the desire to finish fixing the list of articles linked to Jingū of Japan were in a kind of uncertain equipoise.
Under those circumstances, my interpretation of the words I myself typed is entirely sympathetic. I'm so stunned and shocked that I can hardly type fast enough to get the unknown attacker to slow down, to explain .... but it was for naught.
What could I have written? What should I have explained differently? One may hypothesize that it would have been different if I'd been cooperative -- but how could that have played out? As it was, I did respond with alacrity? I tried to encourage a slower pace -- but all for naught.
No one can cooperate when there is not even an element of shared understanding. If I'd known I was doing something dreadfully wrong and then agreed that Mr. Good-Guy caught me in my illicit deeds, that would have been different .... But I had no idea what was happening.
I hated this more than I can adequately convey. Your apology today does nothing to address the impotent fury I feel today more than yesterday.
Yesterday: User:Endroit = exemplar of good faith
Today: User:Endroit ≠ good faith .... Not good.
My patience is not thin, but I do recognize the wisdom in a caveat about casting pearls before swine; and I begin to wonder if Wikipedia etiquette requires me to start keeping an absurd list to remind myself -- User:Endroit = swine ....
I've learned a hard lesson which doesn't sit well at all. My year-end resolution is to be less generous in the Wikipedia environment because no other course of action appears tenable. Anything further from User:Endroit --right, wrong, or otherwise -- will be met with a hearty "GO TO HELL" or some other such phrase which is conventionally understood in Texas. Simple grace is remains extraordinarily valuable, but ... I suppose good judgment or better judgment is what I really need most.
Can you achieve an alchemy which turns bitter into something other than bitter? That would be an extraordinary achievement. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Franz Josef Strauß

Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Contreltophobia

Hi. I'd like to reinstate this page as a redirect to Agraphobia - it seems to be a valid alternative term for the condition. During creation however, I see that this page did exist as a redirect to -phobia, and was deleted by you back in March 2006. I regard this proposed redirect as valid as it links to a specific page, and not the one that was deleted. I doubt there would be any problem in me 'recreating' the redirect (to a different page), but the guidelines don't see to make any exceptions that cover this instance so, as per the guidelines and to avoid falling foul of the wrath of an Administrator, I'm asking your opinion on recreation. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK nom

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 23 December 2007, a fact from the article Computational humor, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for nominating this amusing article for DYK, Mikka. I think this would be a great one for the WikiWorld comic too. --JayHenry (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

New category

Hi Mikkalai. Just to let you know that there is a new category for Military theorists created by Kirill. I have changed this in Tukhachevskii accordingly since he was more of a theorist then a 'writer'. Please spread the word--Mrg3105 (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguous Daisy Systems (disambiguation)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Daisy Systems (disambiguation), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Daisy Systems (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page that only points to a single article, or no articles at all.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Daisy Systems (disambiguation), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Daisy Systems

I don't mean to be paranoid, but I can't help but think you are out to out-wikilawyer me... it's really not my intention to pick a fight.

In the case of me calling the extlink "spam", note that one anonymous editor in one shot added a person with no WP entry, and no less than four companies that also do not have WP entries, complete with an extlink to the person's most current company. Given that the extlink has nothing to do with the article, that struck me as linkspam.

I left the person and his companies in, since they did have some potential claim to notability (see? I don't just blast redlinks out of the water for no reason :-), but I removed the external link, since it had basically nothing to do with Daisy. (And yeah, I called it spam.) If the link belongs anywhere in WP, it would be in an article about CrestaTech.

'k? Again, I have no interest whatsoever in a peeing match. Just like you, I'm just trying to improve WP.--NapoliRoma (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Empress Jingū

In the context created by your recent entanglement in something to do with the legendary Empress Jingū of Japan, perhaps you may be interested in something posted on the National Archives of Japan website. As it happens, a likeness of the empress graced Meiji period 10-yen notes from 1883 through 1899, and an easy opportunity to see this for yourself is only a click away.

Archive description: A banknote sample attached to a letter of inquiry submitted by Ministry of Finance to Grand Council of State in March, 1883, on issuance of a new 10 Yen Bill designed by Edoardo Chiossone, an Italian employed by the ministry. The face of the banknote depicts Empress Jingu. Circulation of this banknote started on Sept. 9, 1883, and ended on Dec. 31, 1899. "Kobun Fuzoku no Zu" (Pictures and charts affiliated with Kobun Roku ) containing this illustration were designated as National Important Cultural Properties of Japan in 1998 together with "Kobunroku".(Compiled Records of the Grand Council of State)

Thank you for your part in helping me to become a better contributor to Wikipedia's improvement. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Psychopathy, User:Zeraeph and User:Mattisse - lummee!

Hi. Sorry. Mattisse has filed a 3RR report on Zareaph following a slew of Z edits on the above article. I don't know if there were conditions on Z returning from her block (or what the result of Mattisse's report is) but there is obviously a need for some sort of resolution to this matter. I think I have some good standing with Z (very little with M, I'm afraid) and am willing to work with you and her to achieve a result - if you think it worthwhile. As I note that you are off-line presently I am going to note this comment to SlimVirgin, in case she is aware of any conditions regarding Z. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My 3-RRR complaint has been rejected as "malformed". So I will depend on LessHeard vanU since no one wants to be involved. It's a hopeless state of affairs. Regards, Mattisse 00:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Gymnophobia

Howdy! I noticed that twice you deleted the article on gymnophobia. I thought about adding it, but as I saw your deletes I thought I'd check with you first. Do you feel it's not worthwhile to have the article? Or is just because the previous versions were "cut and paste copyright violation" and "unreferenced dicdef . content?" There are currently 16 Wikipedia articles that link to the (now nonexistent) article, and it seems having it would be useful. But if you think not, let me know. Thanks! Wakedream (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Colonel (disambiguation)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Colonel (disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration where you are an involved party. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and add a statement if you wish. Jehochman Talk 17:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Colonel (disambiguation)

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. However, it IS sometimes necessary to delete disambiguation pages - there is nothing new in the idea! The Colonel (disambiguation) page was quite pointless, as every element of it was already contained within the only Wikipedia page that pointed to it; it was therefore a candidate for deletion. Despite your comment, I did NOT, of course, delete the page - I merely nominated it for deletion. This allows interested parties, such as yourself, to add more material and so justify the existence of the page - which you have done. So there is no problem! My action was quite correct - your response in developing the page is entirely appropriate also. Both of us have acted entirely within the WP guidance on this matter, so I really don't see that there is a problem. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 19:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Colonel

Moved to Talk:Colonel#Red links, where it belongs. `'Míkka>t 20:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Pakistanphobia

I noticed you participated in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Pakistani sentiment. The article Anti-Pakistani sentiment was eventually moved to Pakistanphobia. Now Pakistanphobia has been nominated for deletion. I thought you might be interested in participating in the AfD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistanphobia. Feel free to come by and contribute your thoughts.Bless sins (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say

I hope you understand that I have only expressed my sincere opinion all along. However, having said that "sincere opinion" always seems to come, thick and fast, in the negative but never in the positive.

I am genuinely impressed, as an human being, by the objectivity and impartiality of your comments on arbcom.

Thank you --Zeraeph (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Holodomor Denial

Moved to Talk:Holodomor denial#Twelve ways.`'Míkka>t 17:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Mims' second studio album

Why did you remove all of the information I had placed on that page I had references at the bottom of the page and you removed them and erased all of the hard work I put into that page. What possessed you to do something like that. From what I have seen of you, you are mainly into army stuff so why are you even in the hip hop section, Signshare (December 31, 2007).

Signshare

Why are you going around undoing everything that I have done, every page I have edited, you have changed you need to stop following me. Signshare (January 2, 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Signshare (talk • contribs) 02:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is spelled THAT not taht and I am not spreading rumors because those solo songs by Mims could possibly be on his second album and the "Like This (remix)" will be on the album. Signshare, January 3, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Signshare (talk • contribs) 22:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Overtow

Good catch on Overtow. It took me a few moments to realize it was template vandalism when I noticed the big photo suddenly popping up on an article. He his this one too but I got it. IrishGuy talk 20:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)