User:Mikkalai/artalk7

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.

Oct-Dec 2006

Contents

Thanks

I was just about to do it myself. Speaking of sockpuppetry, could you semi (or full) protect Hatra? There's a user called MARVEL (talk · contribs) who's been blocked in the past for massive sockpuppetry (check the edit history of the Hatra article). Thanks. —Khoikhoi 18:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, my point is that he's now edited as 168.187.81.254 (talk · contribs). —Khoikhoi 18:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Out of line

This is totally out of line. At least have the decency to apologize. •NikoSilver• 20:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Pontian article

Thank you for restoring the tags. I was very annoyed with User:Mets501's conduct, he basically ignored those of us who disputed the article, and would not even answer my questions on his talk page. Surely an admin should take care to understand a dispute fully from both sides before he makes such rash decisions. Anyway thanks again, --A.Garnet 20:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no chance that this dispute will cease to exist. That does not justify policy violation. (WP:NAME). •NikoSilver• 21:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ban on political parties, Transnistria

You asked MariusM to provide a reference for ban of alleged pro-Moldovan parties. I can give those references, too. There is a brief discussion of the 2001 ban here:[1] (about halfway down the section), by me. I should add that it was a very controversial event within Transnistria itself at the time (in 2001), with one court lifting the ban and another one upholding it, etc. Big debate. The ostensible reason was a political platform that advocated violating the constitution. Technically speaking, 90% of all other countries in the world would ban such a party, too (Germany and the USA included). What matters in the context of the referendum is that this was an isolated 2001 affairs and no bans have taken place ever since. To bring it into an article about a vote in September 2006 is to twist the truth. - Mauco 22:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Pontian Greek Genocide

I'm not sure how closely you've been following the dicussion at Talk:Pontian Greek Genocide. Our point is made about the tags. The article can't remain taged forever! Think of wikipedia's visitors who are reading articles whose neutrality and factual accurancy is disputed. Why you put the tags? You are abusing your admin powers. Like NikoSilver said: I don't expect Turkish users to ever stop disputing this article!. That means it should remain taged? No! Nearly every sentence of the article is sourced! The Turkish users simply don't want to believe that the genocide existed. Thanks Mitsos 12:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request

You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. For an outcome to be achieved, we require you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. Also, a checkuser has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Daniel.Bryant 01:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

mikka, I don't get why you crossed-out 918. If you check his block log, it is empty. BTW, congrats on this. :-) —Khoikhoi 02:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the check user request. Just one question: why do you list me as doing multiple reverts? Isn't it supposed to be Snle? --Niohe 02:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is. I've corrected them. —Khoikhoi 02:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, cut and paste in haste. `'mikka (t) 02:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
(to mikka) ok thanks. —Khoikhoi 02:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Request

Mikka, we all know how good you are at reversing unilateral, undiscussed moves. Could you please take a look at this? The guy obviously doesn't care about the naming guidelines. I don't think any modern scholar would refer to Vasily Shuisky as "Basil IV". --Ghirla -трёп- 07:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. I asked Ezhiki to explain our naming guidelines to Kazak. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 24 September 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article first dance, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

The label is here...

...so I'm leaving you a message! (maybe you wanted to say "until this label is removed from here")!! Ok, I think we started on the wrong foot here, so let's get something straight: I get easily upset when I feel that someone is making unfair comments towards me. Please get to know me, ask my wikifriends, see my contribs, check my userpage and kindly drop this tone like as if you're referring to the lamest troll. If you didn't mean to sound like that, then I apologize, but it really felt this way. Peace? •NikoSilver• 23:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have an impression that you took my comment into an account (I notice you reverted one of your smart comment in the pontian talk). I have no doubts that you are a nice fellow and good editor. But many people confuse article creation/discussion with political wrangling. The goal in wikipedia is not to defeat or lower down an opponent (e.g., by demonstrating his stupidity), but to produce a quality article. Now that I followed your advice to read more, I have something to add to the Pontian Greek case, but until a cool-headed arbiter makes both sides to stop going in rounds and rounds repeating the same monologues, I will not join the topic. I have my own problems over board. Good luck, no hard feelings, `'mikka (t) 23:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
No no no, nobody is trying to make the other side look dumb (even if that is true sometimes) I just tried (successfully I think) to make the other side laugh for a change!(see?) Long comments and circles are not my forte in any case. You'll have to look elsewhere for that (I'm sure you noticed in the archive). As per the arbiter, I'm sure that the presence of three admins (well 2 and a self-desysoped one) in the talk, has already decreased trolling and namecalling significantly. Even Mukkaderat apologized about circling! I think it is a good time for you to start contributing. Oh, and see my proposal in the bottom...•NikoSilver• 23:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Khozyain

Mikka, pls take a look at this when you are out of the wikibreak. I commented on article's talk, but I think you could handle this better than myself. --Irpen 04:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong in having a reduced article?

Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. Thus the 32 KB recommendation is considered to have stylistic value in many cases; if an article is significantly longer than that, then it probably should be summarized with detail moved to other articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style). For most long pages, division into sections is natural anyway; even if there is no "natural" way to split a long list or table, many editors believe that it should be done anyway, to allow section editing. Articles longer than 12 to 15 printed pages (more than 30 to 35 KB of readable text) take longer to read than the upper limit of the average adult's attention span — 20 minutes. An important consideration is that attention span is lower for children, adults of below-average intelligence, and all those with attention deficit disorders (groups we would like to serve as well).[2] [3] [4] Compounding this is that many of these groups also have a slower reading speed. Once the attention span limit is approached, most readers will start to lose focus and retention of the information begins to become significantly hampered. All but the most determined readers will quit reading once this starts to happen, so going over the recommended limit needs to be justified by the topic.

--РКП 11:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation?!?

Mikka, when you get back from your well-deserved hiatus, please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transnistrian referendum, 2006 which has me surprised on two counts:
1. MariusM jumps straight to mediation, without following any of the prior recommended steps in WP:DR
2. MariusM lists "involved parties" misleading. In the past week, he has been reverted over this by me, you, Khoikhoi, Pernambuco, Tekleni, Int19h. Yet he leaves out you, Khoikhoi, Pernambuco, Tekleni and instead lists as "party to the dispute" a friend of his (Peteris Cedrins) who is not involved in the dispute at all and in fact doesn't have a single edit to the article in main namespace. Comments?- Mauco 12:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the size of Russia in strong relationship to the size of the country as Ghirlandajo proposed? I disagree with such relationship.--РКП 15:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Krasnoi

Hi, mikka, when you are back, could you check Battle of Krasnoi? There's a huge dispute going on. I hoped the guys could sort it out themselves, but now it's clear they need a third opinion. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Lubavitch vs. Barry Gurary

Hi Mikka: Please take a look at the Barry Gurary article and the talk at Talk:Barry Gurary#Dispute of content in particular. Your views would be greatly appreciated in the discussion. IZAK 09:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Anton Delvig

Another copy&paste move that needs fixing :( --Ghirla -трёп- 17:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

And another one :(( --Ghirla -трёп- 17:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

CfD

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 1#Category:People known by first name only

May I ask why you deleted it [5] out of process? - jc37 18:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice the vote tag. I just deleted a wrong entry (Beck, surely he is not "know by first name only"; his full name is known as well) and deleted the brainless category: you may put quite a few emperors, tsars, kings, sultans and whos not into it. If you have a better category, you are welcome to create it. `'mikka (t) 18:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, mistakes happen. I'll put this up for DRV, unless you would just undelete, so that we can finish the CfD listing (which had a keep concensus, by the way). - jc37 18:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
OK I undeleted it, although it is empty. And a better name would be Category: People known by single-word pseudonyms (not "single-name", because John Doe is one single name that consists of two parts.). `'mikka (t) 18:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok thank you, I'll let User:Kbdank71 know, so that we can figure out what to do from here. - jc37 19:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you to invite interested people to discuss a good name in the page Category talk:People known by pseudonyms, to decrease posible disagreements in the future.. `'mikka (t) 19:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Plus, since it's also apparently been emptied, having some suggestions on re-populating it would be helpful : ) - Thanks again for your help. - jc37 19:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I wrote "invite people", but I was not sepecific enough: you have to invite them personally, in their talk pages. The problem is that categories do not show in "recent changes" watchlists, and people will probably not notice your message. You probably have to look into histories of the two categories and see who wrote in the voting page, to find interested people. Since the issue is a pretty much narrow, you probably don't need to post at message boards, with the exception, probabaly of WP:MUSIC Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, since most pseudonyms in wikipedia probably come from music. As for repopulating, juch move single-word names from the parent category, and I am sure people will quickly notice this and proceed deeper, like digging for people with two-word article names, but with single-word pseudonyms. `'mikka (t) 23:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Nod. We could also alert everyone who voted "keep" in the CfD discussion. Thanks again : ) - jc37 00:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

List of faux pas AfD

Howdy, you have recently voted delete in this AfD with concerns about Wikipedia not being an etiquette manual. The article has undergone a substantial rewrite since you voiced your concerns and I would like to invite you to take a look at the new version. I don't think all of your concerns have been addressed yet. (There is still some first person tone to remove) However, I would appreciate any input on what more could be done to possibly sway you to reconsider your position. Thanks and I appreciate your time. Agne 06:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Barry Gurary edits

Hi Mikka: Your thoughtful editing in the Barry Gurary article was wiped out by User:PinchasC. Thanks for your positive input. IZAK 07:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Laicité

I just saw your proposal to merge the two articles together.. I am pasting a reply that I had put on that page.. Such a move would be gravely incorrect from an academic POV, please feel free to contact me with any additional questions that you might have.. <snipped> Baristarim 02:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to cut and paste huge texts. A redirect to Talk:Separation_of_church_and_state#Merge_proposal would have been fine. Answered there. `'mikka (t) 04:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fourth Rome

Could you investigate what's going on here? --Ghirla -трёп- 09:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Censorship was a Roman republican institution. Could you please give this article a break. Everybody knows that orins of American Republic are in Rome and analyses of the republican statecraft during The Age of Reason. The reason why there is no claim for creating a Fourth Rome is in line with this mind set. Republic that is based on reason instead of tradion doesn't need to claim any tradition from earlier states.
Sorry, colleague, wikipedia is not a chat room. No comments until you read and understand the policies I listed in Talk:Fourth Rome. `'mikka (t) 09:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My talk

I've responded there -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Barry Gurary

Not a big deal but a lubavitcher is someone that follows the lubavitcher rebbe, he did not as it is clear from the article, maybe you want to put him under prominent rabbis instead as he was prominent and ordained as a rabbi. However if you wish to keep it there, I won't make a fuss... --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Gallery of Passports

If you disgaree with my tagging the images why not help me by fixing the incorrect tags? There is no mechanism for me to remove incorrect copyright tags without disputing the image and if I don't tag the disputed images on the page, a bot is simply going to come through and do it. There is extensive discussion on talk:passport and it was discourteous for you to simply revert away without discussing it first. I have sought consensus for my actions and it is a shame you have not. If you don't like the tags there is only one option - the removal from the gallery of every image with incorrect tags. Would you prefer this? If so, why not make a proposal on the talk page.--Spartaz 05:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I had no idea where you sought consensus. I looked into talk pages of the templates in question and saw nothing. Next time please use this nifty feature called "edit summary" rather than play offended. Also please make links to pages you refer to, so that I don't have to type "talk:passport" to finally find out what the heck was all about. `'mikka (t) 14:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Doh, if you didn't know where I had sought consensus than you didn't check the talk page of the passport gallery before reverting. Hardly my fault. I take your point about adding directions and will do so next time but that doesn't justify your taking such an agreesive stance nor reverting me before I had a chance to respond to your demands. Before you revert me again, please visit pui. Spartaz 15:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Doh, I first noticed your works in Belarusian passport and be assured there was no discussion in its talk page. "pui" has nothing to do with your littering of articles with gratious number of tags. An article is for encyclopedic content, not a billboard. `'mikka (t) 15:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Instructions to place the tag are on PUI. I see you reverted again. You have now had 3 reverts on this article. Do it again and I will report you to AN:3RRSpartaz 16:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey I condensed your reply on PUI so everything except the french one (so far) can be considered as a whole. Please don't take offense to it, I just want to help group those together rather than fracturing the discussion needlessly until we get more evidence about each one. The issue with physical objects put into the public view and designs are sort of different. In the tank example, you may be ok in a similar way that we can publish skyline pictures. Even the attempt at copyrighting the lighting on the tower of london was slightly defeated by a ruling in France that they did not consider general pictures of Paris to be infringing. However, the insignia on each passport is likely copyrighted by that goverment. We need to find out if it is not, else they're infringing. Kevin_b_er 18:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You are confusing "insignia" and passport itself, that happens to have insignia displayed. By this logic you cannot have a photo of Microsoft building because it shows the copyrighted corporate logo. This copyright paranoia went way over board. Laymen like you and me just don't have a say in copyright issue. Wikipeia must have a board of copyright-savvy (not just copyright-crazy) people that may talk in an argumentative way, not just because they think so. `'mikka (t) 18:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not joking, and I'm not crazy. If you're centerpiece to a picture of microsoft's campus is microsoft's copyrighted (and trademarked too) logo, you lose. What's more, beyond just the 'insignia' on the passowrds: Its a produced documented.(Just that its by a government rather than a person) Its a book cover. Money is copyrighted too in many countries, for example. At least in the US, 17 USC 102 does not cover vechicles, but does cover architectural works if the designs are published or the buildings are constructed in a sort of cookie cutter fashion, but we're talking about other country's laws. TSo you see, you can't compare these things so well to pictues of tanks or buildings. The heart of the problem is that those passports are like the covers of books. Have to justify that they are not covered by those country's laws against copying even government documents. And since they're used in a gallery fashion, {{bookcover}} is not appropreate if you were to want to claim them under fair use. I'm really sorry. Insted of argueing the fundamentals or trying to edit war with Spartaz (who is going against the spirit of the 3RR rule by claiming an allottment of reverts), help me find out if some of these passport documents are produced by countries which do not copyright their own documents. Kevin_b_er 19:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
If you cared to pay closer attention, I don't particularly adamant about these photos. What really pisses me off is the desire to add more and more various warning templates into articles. As I explained, the image copyright is not the problem of the article, but of the image, and it belongs to the image page. Anything not directly related to immediate (and not included/transcluded) content of a page must be discussed in its talk page (if one really wants to say something). The article itself is not a billboard for really obnoxious warning texts about suspected problems elsewhere. `'mikka (t) 01:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I already addressed this - the tags are inserted because the policy at PUI says they should be. I quite agree they are horrid but you need to be dealing with the policy instead of revert warring with me about it. Irpen has now correctly tagged the image and it has been withdrawn from PUI. Spartaz 07:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Lou Pearlman revisited

Hi Mikka, your good judgement is needed again, see Lou Pearlman. Talent Rock shills vandalising the page and contributing POV and unsourced potentially libellous BS. Thanks. 82.73.147.201 18:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you immediate attention. You removed a phrase and explained ("is not known" is a too strong phrase. Requires quotation.) I do not agree. Anyone will be unable to find any big name that was discovered on one of Pearlmans talent events. Just try and find one. Therefor "is not known" is simply true, nothing too strong about it imho.
That something does not exist usually requres more efforts to prove than to prove that something exist: in the latter case a single example will do. Therefore sorry, such phrases are not allowed in wikipedia without reference to a source who took upon themselves the burden of proof of non-existence. `'mikka (t) 23:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, perhaps you might consider following reasoning as proof. If they made a contestant a star, undoubtably this would be featured prominently by them in press releases and on their own website. This would show up in Internet search results, wouldn't it? There is no such result, and there is no allegation of it on talentrock.com. Therefor for proof I simply could refer to that site, stating there is no contestant mentioned to have become a star. I won't give them that pleasure though, I like the last solution (no name at all) much better. LOL! Have a nice weekend, Mikka SooperJoo 05:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This proof is called original research in wikipedia parlance, namely the "would be" part. The only thing you can say is to state a fact that their website doesn't list any success stories (or it does?). But you cannot claim no success stories anywhere. `'mikka (t) 08:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As one can see in the page history, the one and only reason of Talent Rock company and supporters contributing to Wikipedia, has been to spam the Talent Rock link and thus using wikipedia as a vehicle to promote their commercial business. Pearlman personally was very successfull in marketing these boy bands, but this is unrelated to his talent contests like Talent Rock. One of the major complaints against Pearlman's methods of selling the WSN/TCT, has been their falsely suggesting that Pearlman's boy bands success would imply higher chances on the same kind of success with the contests. They are only trying to do the same here. 82.73.147.201 19:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Military counterintelligence of Soviet Army

Unless you object, I plan to move this to "Military counterintelligence of the Soviet Army". Best, Tom Harrison Talk 20:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. `'mikka (t) 23:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Punkmorten 10:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Spartaz

A decline for 'obvious' at RFCU almost certainly means the checkuser views the sockpuppetry as so obvious that a use of the checkuser tool need not be done. I reported Spartaz for it, and he was blocked for 8 hours. I'm also an informal clerk for the RFCU pages, so I also removed your reposting in the outstanding section. It'll be in the declined section for a few days, then you can find it linked from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case. Kevin_b_er 23:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gayk.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gayk.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Kevin Breitenstein

There is a note on his talk page you may find of interest. Spartaz 15:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kven

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Kven-user limited to one account and is placed on probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing. The Kven-user is banned from editing articles related to Kven or making any edits regarding the topic. Should Kven-user edit under any username or IP prior to selecting a username any edit made may be removed on sight and the account indefinitely blocked. Should Kven-user violate any ban, he may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kven#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 00:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello! You've been mentioned as a potential participant in a dispute regarding the article Transnistrian referendum, 2006. Please review the mediation and discussion, and feel free to participate if you feel it is appropriate. If not, your comments would still be appreciated. Thank you, and please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Disgusting" behaviour

Hi Mikkalai. I would like to ask you, as a fellow admin, to refrain on giving me moral lessons about what is "disgusting" or not. Generally, I'm very open to criticism and recommendations, but I think the way you approached me on my talkpage wasn't at all in the spirit of good faith. I did not ask your opinion about this matter, and frankly you have absolutely no mandate at all to lecture me on what I should do on my talk page or with whom I should engage in conversation - particularly using strong language such as "disgusting". The decision to block the "troll" Bonaparte was not mine, and as a person who respects both the freedom of speech and the idea that people's actions are not eternal and can change, I do not have any objection to conducting conversations with Bonaparte. That he was blocked by other people does not change at all my value judgement of him, and does not prevent me from continuing to engage in dialogue with him. Remember, dialogue is good, and I believe everyone, no matter what they've done, deserve the right to be treated with respect and to be replied to. Finally: yes, I know this is the English Wikipedia; there is no formal policy on conducting discussions outside of this language. If you like, I can translate the discussion, or get an independent third party to do so. That would be no problem. Cheers, Ronline ✉ 04:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not giving you any lessons. I am saying my opinon that your behavior is disgusting. Encouraging vicious trolls who do not show any remorse is deplorable. You may have al free speech you need, just as I have my right to exercise my option of free speech to say don't feed trolls. And if it is your will to disagree with community, then let community keep in mind that there are nationalistic troll feeders among admins. `'mikkanarxi 18:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I honestly don't quite understand why you have decided to approach me in such a hostile manner. My intention here is not to antagonise you nor nor any other contributor at Wikipedia, and as a person who respects people in general, I also don't seek to antagonise what you see as "banned trolls", as long as those banned trolls have not affected me personally. One of my core values is to judge people as little as possible. Consequently, I find your tone (use of "disgusting", "deplorable") rather inappropriate, particularly the way in which you refer to me as a "nationalistic troll feeder" (which can be interpreted in different ways, and I am in no way a "nationalist"). This tone is particularly surprising coming from another admin. I think if you really wanted to get your intended message across to me, you could've done it in a much more diplomatic and polite way rather than trying to use such a confrontational tone. You have to realise that there are admins, including me, who are opposed to zero tolerance, absolute punishment and many of the other values that you possess. In a tolerant, diverse community such as Wikipedia, you have to accept these views as different rather than necessarily wrong. Ronline ✉ 05:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Your "tolerance" legitimizes his vandalism and creates extra work for 9 other admins busy reverting the pet troll you feed. And I will not accept these views as merely "different", but as a "nuisance". You had your chances to talk to senses of this person when he was not banned and I asked romanian community to do something. Now it is simple as this: in a "diverse community such as Wikipedia" some believe that a conscious troll feeder is no better than troll.
And oh, by the way, language thing: read some etiquette books. Most of them will tell you that talking foreign languages in a mixed company is disrespect to other people. If they don't print such books in Romanian language (I an beginning to suspect so, because this limba romaneasca issue in talk pages poppped several times already), please buy an English one. `'mikkanarxi 06:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I personally believe, however, that the actions of these 9 admins is actually a lot more counterproductive than my dialogue with Bonaparte. By adopting such a hard line with him, you are in many ways stirring him up and making him "troll" more. In fact, I believe that in many ways Bonaparte's trolling problem could've been solved at the start of the issue with more tolerant and constructive dialogue. I'm a firm believer that refusing to engage in dialogue, and hard-line policies in general, only serve to alienate, antagonise and at the end of the day radicalise people. As a minority rights worker, I've experienced the way in which intolerance and exclusion results in this type of behaviour.
As to the language issue: I don't know how it is in your culture, but in Romania, at least in my environment, there is a lot of tolerance for these matters. The whole "don't talk foreign languages in mixed company" alludes to linguistic imperialism, and particularly reminds me of the way in which many Hungarian or Romani speakers in Romania were told to "speak Romanian" in public (i.e. on the bus), because they shouldn't be talking "loudly in foreign languages" when others could hear them. You seem to advocate a very hierarchical and rather hardline/intolerant worldview: everyone must follow the rules and adhere to the norms, if they break them then they are punished with zero tolerance, etc. And since you're the one telling me about etiquette: I think you've gone against a much more basic rule of etiquette: that of trying to being nice and polite to people. So maybe you should read some books on how to understand and tolerate others, and be a bit more flexible in your worldview, and "if they don't print such books in Belarus", then "please buy an English one" :) Finally, at the request of Irpen (who gave me a very polite request which I followed out with pleasure), I've translated all of my Romanian dialogue with Bonaparte in English, so since yesterday that's no longer been an issue. (Again, I fail to see why you've brought it up now). Ronline ✉ 08:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I never found Bonaparte to be much of a problem (certainly no more than any other editor with an opinion) but we did ban him, so in the end if we have credible evidence that he's back we should simply block and move on. If he wants to come back he can apply to ArbCom, I don't mind acting as proxy, but this drama is helping nobody. Guy 20:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop

Your harming other wikipedians with the same I.P number I have been blocked numerous times becuase someone with the same i.p as me is vandilizing. Can you trak he-orshes computer any other way?Slovenia0102034 00:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As I see, you are easily editing. Please continue doing so, using a non-anonymous account (BTW, it actually provides more anonymity, because only wikipedia software developeds can find the IP address of a named user). `'mikkanarxi 00:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Mikhail,

Thank you for your help with article Jewish bolshevizm.

Viktor



Deacon/lecturer

I'm not sure why you insist on using Deacon as an example in the Russian phonology page. I mean, it works I guess, but both my dictionary and one of the sources in the page use lecturer in that context. Is the word translated as lecturer awkward? I really don't want to get into a silly revert war over this. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
That's good advice, and I wouldn't have said anything if that's what I were doing. The fact of the matter is, though, that a bilingual dictionary is not my primary source. It's The Sound Pattern of Russian. In addition, your edits were not a simple meaning change. You also changed the actual word (that is, the word was дьяк and you changed it to дьякон). You do plenty of edits and I asked you politely because I assumed you had a clear and compelling reason to do so. But you don't seem to have any reason to change the word and I'd rather go with what the source states. That your edit didn't adjust the IPA to the word change shows that you aren't paying attention to your own edit. I'm going to revert it back to дьяк and unless you have some clear and compelling reason not to use дьяк other than to spite me or because you're stubborn, I suggest you don't change it. Please try to act harmoniously. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Rather than to ask for explanations about things you don't have a clue, you prefer to act smartass.
<plonk> `'mikkanarxi 22:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I did ask. See the top of this discussion and actually read it and you'll see question marks. In English they indicate one is asking question. Also (and I know this may be subtle to a non-native speaker), "I'm not sure why..." is a statement indicating ignorance, which another way of prompting an answer without asking a question).
You found a good compromise, which I appreciate, but you were a real WP:DICK about it. I've asked you on several occasions to be civil and you seem to be either unwilling or unable. So if we continue to butt heads I may request administrative action against you. Regards. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
For your "question" mark I have you a free advice for a proper place where to find information, because judging from your stubborn and inpatient revert war I concluded that you would hardly respect my opinion. And it seems I was right: you did not even follow my directions where to seek correct information and just continued your revert war. Good luck in looking for troubles. `'mikkanarxi 23:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I assumed that you had an advanced grasp of English. I'll try to be clearer and use smaller words. Your reply to my question didn't tell me why you prefered using дьякон over дьяк. That was what I wanted to know. No book will tell me why Mikkalai prefers one word over another.
If you had answered my question by saying, "дьяк is not easily translated into English and дьякон would be better because it is easily translated into English" I would have respected that. You are the native speaker and all I have is a dictionary. I know that this gives you a certain authority when it comes to translations. You are incorrect in assuming that I would not respect this. I ask you, in the future, to assume good faith. You put a lot of heart and soul into Wikipedia and I respect that. Please remember that we are all trying to make Wikipedia better and that we need to work together to do so. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 23:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Have you seen what's going on with List of unrecognized countries? --Ghirla -трёп- 10:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[6] --Irpen 11:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thousands of fair use images at your disposal

Look what I found Большая Советская Энциклопедия. Thousands of 1970s images from the 3rd edition that can be uploaded under fair use for anything. Also right now I have the original 1950s 2nd edition of the encyclopedia in 50+ hardbacks with excellent PD images in them. Any requests?

Here is a taster Минск. --Kuban Cossack 13:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Constantzeanu

Can you please do something about this guy? Check out his comments at Talk:Romanians#Number of Romanians... Khoikhoi 22:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, do something about him!! I can't stand this guy. Hes a Romanian shovinist, imperialist pig whom I cannot stand. I say assasinate him. But not before banning his IP, bombarding his comp. with viruses and branding him a sockpuppet of Bonaparte since we have to make an example of other Romanian shovinist-imperialist pigs who dare to raise a finger against us, the all knowing and all powerful!!! DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS GUY!!! DO SOMETHING!!! Dapiks 01:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to tell me when I have personally attacked someone?Dapiks 02:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
In Talk:Romanians. Obviously khoikhoi felt attacked. Therefore please stop wrting such things in article talk pages. If you have a problem with a certaing users, you may complain in appropriate places. Article talk pages ara for discussion of article contents not of user's behavior. `'mikkanarxi 02:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well perhaps I feel attack every time you threaten me or every time Khoikhoi mocks me or every time he uses false sources to push his POV. The reason why I have posted it there is because I want this issue resolved there and for people to see. There was no need to erase evidence of an inapropiate and biased attitude by admin. I have copied my message on the Romanian notice board onto the page so that people who stop by there would get a chance to see what is going on. Plz do not erase it on the so-called grounds of "personal attacks" since I am not personally attack anyone.Dapiks 02:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not thereatening you. I am telling you that your message was a personal attack, rather than a discussion of article content. Please consult policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks, since it looks like that you don't understand what you are doing. `'mikkanarxi 03:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I just finished reading that page. Funny how I remember a certain someone that called me an "expantionist Romanian shovinist" when he proposed that the ethnic Romanians map be erased, even though I didn't even post it up but only proposed it and opened it up for discussion. But I guess that wasn't "a personal attack", right?Dapiks 04:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
My proposal for deletion actually said: "nationalistic Romanian irredentism propaganda map that denies that moldovans/Moldova are a separate nation." As you may notice, it is about map and it is explained why: it denies that Moldovans defive themselves as a separate people. Believe me or not, I even didn't look who created this map.
Also, let me explain you something, so that you better understand what I was saying but you ignored. In my evaluation of talks, I am not making fuss of occasional "gucking idot" words, or, like your colleague Dahn wrote to me "read the whole fucking paragraph before making such absurd comments" and then started playing offended. But when someone tells you "please stop, you are not discussion atricle text, you are attacking an editor", you better stop. In the case you didn't notice, I didn't block you even after your revert, because unlike our friend bonnie I see you are makig valuable contributions, and if you look in my block log, you will see I am not a trigger-happy andmin who runs around blocking people for two weeks for using the word "shit". So cool down and work on text, not on khoikhoi. Besides, you and me and khoikhoi are not newcomers here and we all have established opinions for our positions, no need to make extra fuss about personalities. `'mikkanarxi 17:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Name-calling and other personal remarks detract from the collegial atmosphere we're trying to cultivate here. It's best to focus on the writing, and not bother trying to describe the character or motives of other contributors. --Uncle Ed 14:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Bessarabian Soviet Socialist Republic

I noticed you created this article. I left some comments on its talk page, please answer.--MariusM 11:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On November 13, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Walking fish, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks, just the kind of paradox which is ideal for DYKBlnguyen (bananabucket) 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On November 13, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mixer dance, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

ALoan updated this one last time round, but didn't get around to the stamps - he often is busy Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Kyrgyz genocide

I was thinking about Urkun. Circassian genocide has been revived as Circassian ethnic cleansing. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Siberian Wiki

It is only a few days old. I reinstated the wikilink on Germany after checking the destination of the link. Agathoclea 18:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. My personal believe though is that there is no harm in waiting the course of the deletion discussion before acting here. Agathoclea 21:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to close that wiki you will vote for closing, i don't want to close that wiki and i was vote against closing. My vote is absolutely enough without comment. If that isn't clear to you go to psychiatrist. --SasaStefanovic • 22:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I see. It looks like many who voted to keep this 'pedia have problems with speaking in a civilized way, just like ru-sib itself. `'mikkanarxi 22:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not retarded person who don't know for what to vote, and first of all, i didn't know that this wiki is going to close (by voting), you told me that and call me to vote. I was go there, read about why someone want to close it and vote agains closing. Is that clear ? And, one more thing, i don't want to talk about this anymore, i vote and my vote is counting that's all i want. --SasaStefanovic • 22:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

1920 Kiev Offensive

Wouldn't Kiev Offensive (1920) more in line with our naming conventions? One way or another, you have lots of redirects to fix (now they target the disambig).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Red Front

The KPD used "Rot Front!" as a general slogan throughout the Weimar period, it was not a specific reference to the RFB. The KPD's strategy in this period was to build a "united front from below" with the majority of German workers who supported the SPD, without having to deal with the SPD itself, which was officially classed as "social fascist" by the Comintern. The slogan Red Front! was used by other communist parties in the same period. Adam 04:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Roitr back again

Hi! Can you please with this problem now? See the latest info here: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr‎ --Nixer 19:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Spamming

Hi mikka, could you take a look at this? --Ghirla -трёп- 12:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indef. block for NorbertArthur. Khoikhoi 21:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


Pétrouchka

This is supposed to be an English-language project, no? --Ghirla -трёп- 07:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

ru-sib

I voted for closing. `'mikkanarxi 23:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

List of ethnic slurs

I started a side conversation with Art at User talk:Art LaPella about his concerns. Though we see eye-to-eye, I wouldn't want to exclude you from the discussion. Perhaps we should move it to the article talk page anyway. -Will Beback · † · 00:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

GNAA

Don't reopen the GNAA AfD while it's being discussed at WP:DRV. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to discuss. Closed in blatant violation of deletion policy. If you want to discuss somethiung, you better discuss abuse of admin rights by the closing admin. `'mikkanarxi 20:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there's lots to discuss. Kindly read DRV's before wheel warring -- Tawker 20:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I did read and voted. Admin's abuse is absolutely inadmissible. `'mikkanarxi 20:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, I suggest you read the DRV, you are blatantly violating policy in wheel warring. -- Tawker 20:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to suggest that if you read it, you're strongly misinterpreting the consensus of the discussion and your actions are unproductive. As the third administrator who has disagreed with your re-opening of the debate, would you consider closing it and waiting for the DRV discussion? Shell babelfish 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am absolutely shocked with endorsement of blatant abuse of admin's rights, but I will not lose my sleep over it, let clowns eat me. Go ahead. `'mikkanarxi 20:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it is that serious. The AfD did not look misused, at least not clear "admin abuse". It was the 18th AfD however, so in that light, I suppose there are questions left. On the other hand I don't know how many socks/trolls where on the other AfDs either. I'd rather just let the DRV finish.Voice-of-All 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you do, PLEASE don't wheel war over deletion/undeletion of an article with so many edits!!!!! You'll bring the servers to their knees. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai, there's no way it makes sense to have both the AFD and DRV open at the same time. If you think this was not a proper deletion you can comment to that effect at DRV and leave it at that. You've already violated WP:WHEEL. Chick Bowen 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

temp page

User:Coolcat/P142: do you still need it? `'mikkanarxi 17:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I do want to work on it since the current version on Armenian Genocide is depressingly biased. Even making a simple edit to the article causes havoc. I haven't had the time to work on it and several people "owning" the Armenian Genocide article is still problematic... I have however moved the page to my "new" username. --Cat out 00:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Stamps

Thanks for the information. --Ineffable3000 02:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Silly moves

Mikka, could you take a look at this? Several clueless guys moved the article at whim, violating WP:DASH and a couple of other policies. Now we need to bring the title back to normalcy, i.e., to Russo-Turkish War (1787-1792). --Ghirla -трёп- 09:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpfulness! --Ghirla -трёп- 09:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Self-published? NOT!

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illuminates of Thanateros. I'm guessing that you didn't even take the time to click through the ISBNs or do any other sort of due diligence or research before nominating the article for deletion. —Hanuman Das 01:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again

Hi, Mikkalai. I see your note above about trimming your watchlist. I understand you may not have time to reply, but I'll anway, since my request deals with a very important article. I'd appreciate your input on the article and other editors knowledgeable about Russia. Earlier today, I converted a new section of the Vladimir Putin consisting of a narrative of conspiracy theories into a section on Putin's crime policies. [7] But then I was reverted by editor accusing me of "suppressing documented information." [8] 172 | Talk 02:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I just restored encyclopedicity there for now but we should always expect such articles to be hot. So I may end up being reverted. --Irpen 02:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 !!!

I found this note of yours wondereful in the discussion regarding AfD of Taphephobia, and did laugh! Dont make me laugh. wiktionary is even worse source than wikipedia. It is a junkyard. `'mikkanarxi 08:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC). I'm relatively new to WP, and am here primarily since I got sick of people using it as a scholarly resource. Even master's degree students just don't get "it." And, I'm not so sure most WP editors do either. That's just between you and me though ... ;-) ... Regards, Keesiewonder 13:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

.

Hi Mikka. As I know you are a deletionist, I bring to your attention my first attempt to join the deletionists' club in Wikipedia--MariusM 02:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Odin Brotherhood

Hi Mikkalai, I see you have deleted the article on the Odin Brotherhood. I won't argue with you but I was wondering if you would kindly send me the latest edited page for my own personal information. I t was well written for what it was and I would like the information for my own studies. I have been sent a page previously deleted on here by an administraor as he knew how to send email to me without givin out my email address. All I did was add my address in my profile hidden from view (I am sure you know what I am talking aBOUT.) I would GREATLY appreciate you sending me this information. FK0071a 22:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 49 4 December 2006 About the Signpost
Arbitration Committee elections open The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins 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 05:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalduny

Please take a look. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko 15:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On December 6, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fear of being buried alive, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hello Mikka. Thanks for all these off-beat articles. Very appropriate for DYK. Happy editing, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle lists for deletion

You'll probably be interested to know that the AFDs—and the fates of the various lists in question—are already being actively discussed by WPMILHIST. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahem ... Re: WATCH your BROWSER FONTS!

Ummm ... what's the deal? All I've done with Cuisine is neaten the spacing (as far as I know). If I've done anything I don't know about, then please let me know on my talk page. Thanks, Yuser31415@?#&help! 00:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC) [Just realized]] - oh, I see the problem with the foreign characters at the bottom of the page. What are they there for, by the way? I'd better start using Firefox instead of Konqueror, now. Why do I keep getting all these charset problems? Oh well. Yuser31415@?#&help! 00:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they do appear to be different. Yuser31415@?#&help! 01:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've remade my edits to Cuisine using the Unicode charset, GVim, and Seamonkey. Did it work properly this time? Cheers, Yuser31415@?#&help! 01:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

your recent reversion

Dear Mikkalai,

please to meet you good sir, and thank you for your interest in the article on the theory of everything. It is a fascinating subject indeed. I am a little curious why you refer to me as a troll however. I assure you I am a human being just like you are. Out of pure curiosity and fascination, I wonder, did it ever occurr to you that every number has it's reciprocal, including the number 0 itself? Did it occur to you that the reciprocal of 0 would be 1/0? THis is the fascinating principle that you can see for yourself. PLease read the article and I'm sure you will find it interesting and of prominent importance. You seem like an intelligent person to me, and I have a high respect for wikipedians in general. All of us are purveyors of knowledge. As such, please do not delete knowledge before it has a chance to be known. I encourage to take a look at the article a little closer. I have noticed that most people revert it without even reading it. I think that is a shame.

well, again, it was nice talking to you,

sincerely, Archetype —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.20.124 (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

  • You obviously did not take (probably did not see) my advice posted on User talk:129.138.20.139:
    Please take your time and instead of writing do some reading and understand how wikipedia works. Please start from Wikipedia:Five pillars page.
Please read it first (it is a kind of FAQ), and then we shall talk. `'mikkanarxi 02:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much Mikkalai. I did not originally see your comment. I will read the link you have provided and then return. THanks again. Sincerely, Archetype —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.20.124 (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC).


Dear Mikkalai,

Thank you for your concern again. I have read the five pillars as you requested. My article complies with all five. The article is accurate, is not original research, and furthermore, it is a neutral point of view, considering that 1/0 is both positive and negative, the perfect fusion of yin and yang. The source, 1/0, is verifiable and authoritative. Furthermore, I would like to add that you have not followed the code of conduct. By calling me a troll you have not been civil and you have made a personal attack and a sweeping generalization. Furthermore, you have not acted in good faith which I specifically asked in the article and which is wikipedias official policy. If you act in good faith and leave the article up, then I will gladly post the video showing the proof. Also, in the five pillars I was told that there are no solid rules and that one should be bold in editing articles. That is exactly what I have done. Therefore I deduce that I am a model wikipedian. You however, could possibly use some improvement as far as being more civil, not making sweeping generalizations or personal attacks, and acting in good faith.

sincerely, Archetype —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Germanium (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Bonny

I suspect this account to be a sock of some seasoned troll. Please investigate. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground

Your comment to me regarding Ukranian sausage stated "Google is helpful only when you have at least a minimal idea of the topic" was unnecessary and insulting. As a helpful reminder please visit the following official policy article.

WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND

Happy editing!

Drew30319 00:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It was written as a general-purpose cautionary remark about yet another abuse of google during votes for deletion. You may also see that votes for deletion frequently mention {ab)use of google hit counts and other superficial arguments. My remark was fueled by another quite stupid case I cleaned just days ago: there were two very prolific asteroid discoverers with information close to nothing. And some well-meaning editors acrambled from google scraps of information about several different persons with the same name, It was very funny (and sad) to read that Seiji_Ueda, besides discovering 698 ! asteroid was at the same time a theoretical biologist, a surgeon, a mathematitian and worked at Kawasaki Steel.

So please take my advise: please judge and seriously edit articles which are within your range or reasonable knowledge. For example, you are very welcome to fix my non-ideal english, and I will not mind if you even call it "atrocious", which would be a judgement in a reasonable direction .

Good luck, `'mikkanarxi 00:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

cite tag

Oops, I used the wrong tag. --Improv 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 18 December 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bee smoker, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Updated DYK query On 18 December 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fear of bees, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Many thanks again Mikka for your synchro-DYKs ! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

From user page

re: "INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION AT LAST! Bigger than barnstar "

Here! . --Irpen 01:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Congrats ... You popped your cherry! I found out about my own quotation less than 24 hrs ago (sadly, no political analyst status though). - Mauco 04:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's your wheel-sized barnstar from me: Nikola 08:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The opposite of modest barnstar, reserved for political analysts

The modest barnstar

The modest barnstar
The modest barnstar

Awarded the Modest Barnstar, which is really no big deal, and not flashy at all, but your modest contribution deserves it. User:Pedant 21:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On December 24, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article whipcracking, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Nishkid64 14:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On December 24, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article whip fighting, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Nishkid64 14:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Rare Diseases Starting With M: Revision as of 05:02, 22 November 2006

Hello, I just noticed your revision of Rare Diseases Starting With M as of 05:02, 22 November 2006. I just wanted to let you know that the only reason I have not, and will not revert them and repremend you for suspected vandalism, is due to the pure emotion of Apathy. Although Laxatives may help my inablity to give a sh-t on this topic, It is not that big of a deal, so: unless further suspected vandalism occurs, you are safe, although you have been warned.

-Emevas 20:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Don't be so ready to jump on an Article for deletion when someone like me is in the middle of making the notice. Hu 10:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope no big harm done. Happened the same with myself a couple of times. Since then I don't hit the "save" button on the tagged page until I finish the nomination. `'mikka 10:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No harm done at all. I just thought I'd mention it. However, your advice seems like an excellent way to proceed, and I will adopt it. Thanks. Hu 10:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam protection filter

Hello,

I would like to ask you, as an administrator, on the so called "spam protection filter".

I was trying to edit the HC Pardubice article, but I was not allowed to save it and a message about this filter always appeared. It seems that the filter does not like the site http://www.mujweb.cz .

However, the Czech ice hockey team fan page ( http://www.mujweb.cz/Sport/hcpardubice/ ), to which the article was linked a long time ago, is definitely not any sort of spam. The problem probably is that Mujweb is a popular Czech free web provider, and therefore there might be some spam on their pages, but as everybody can see, not on this one. Banning the whole Mujweb is a similar nonsense as banning e.g. Geocities.

Could you give me some advice, what to do, or where to ask?

Thanks a lot.

It is really ridiculous. I was even not allowed to save this message, because it contained the "bad" links. Therefore I put them into nowiki tags. Jan.Kamenicek 00:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer.
Well, it is not only my way, is it? ;-) Jan.Kamenicek 01:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Little Blue Light, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On December 28, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Little Blue Light, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 22:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)