User talk:Scimitar/Archive 004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk Archive IV from September 2, 2005 - October 5, 2005

[edit] Helen Love

can you give me a chance to write the Helen Love artivel before deleting it please. I did put that it was a stub! I'm just sorting out the various other links that should go to it before i fill it out Spute 15:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, i've put a stub up, it will be expanded soon. Sorry my initial stub was a bit too scrappy, but it was only a quicky. Spute 15:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barrett's Privateers

It's just the rules for Wikipedia categorization -- Category:Stan Rogers songs is already a subcategory of both Category:Canadian songs and Category:Folk songs, so you don't directly file a song in all three categories. No article should ever be simultaneously filed in both a parent category and a subcategory of that parent category at the same time. Bearcat 16:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Atatürk

Hi, I remember you showed some interest in the Greco-Turkish relations page, a new page called Criticism of Atatürk has been created. There is a disagreement running in the discussion whether Ataturk should be accused of a genocide or not, your input would be appreciated. --A.Garnet 21:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, no problem. --A.Garnet 23:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Looks fine now

Yay, no more overlapping boxes! android 79 23:49, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Francis Schonken

Perhaps User:Francis Schonken should understand that he is expected to receive criticism at same level at which he himself has "attacked" others: [1], [2] - [3]
Conduct towards others is usually a two-sided thing. 217.140.193.123 12:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About my RfA

Hi Jonathan. You chose to be neutral on my RfA, but I appreciate the fact that you made your concerns public. I just would like to assure you that I will still work my best on Wikipedia, in order to prove wrong any fears you may still have about me. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 08:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Scimitar,

I would not, I stress not, add the "Template:SockpuppetProven" to Arrigo's user page, neither did I do that.

The wikipedia:Sockpuppet page has:

The <SockpuppetProven> template should not be added in the cases of accusations of sockpuppetry which have not been proven. Instead, add Template:Sockpuppet to the page

so, that's what I did, with a link in the template to a sample of the evidence.

In reply to that I've received several e-mails and messages on my talk page by other wikipedians, each of them appearing to have their own evidence, in addition to the evidence I also already gathered at User talk:Francis Schonken/Arrigo disruption, in preparation for an RfC. I thought that an RfC could be avoided, and that the warning would work in itself, to bring Arrigo to his senses w.r.t. his disruptive behaviour. It appears like there's going to be an RfC nonetheless.

User:Deb wrote on my talk page:

Dear Francis, as I'm sure you are aware, I share your concern about this user's activities, particularly his careless page moves and disruption of votes. Incidentally, he has used several other IP addresses to access wikipedia, for example 62.78.104.14, but as far as I know he is currently only using the two "identities". This in itself I consider to be worthy of an RfC. However, this note is just to tell you that, much as I would like to support the RfC you are considering, my opinion would surely be disregarded because of the disputes I have already had with him (I'm pretty sure it's a "he", partly because of the misogynistic streak he occasionally displays.) If I do ever contribute to an RfC on the subject of this user, it will have to be one I raise myself -- at the moment I'm not quite ready to do that, as I feel he could still make a worthwhile contribution to the project if he would only abandon his arrogance.

A sysop provided me a host of links to other circumstantial and hard evidence of sockpuppeterial behaviour of Arrigo and his most preferred IP (217.140.193.123). This is one of the contributions of that sysop to my talk page:

However, because it can potentially resolve many issues, I'll spend some time to look into it. I think it is very sneaky for an IP to do that - it's misleading for one thing. I'll get back to you in a bit!

Later the same sysop added

I am wondering if something more severe is required. [...] I did some searching around; you might be interested in this link here and here. In particular, the last sentence may be of interest to you. Also, consider the context of these links here and here. Let me know what you think, and if I can help you out any further. Cheers! --HappyCamper 03:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

And there are still more links provided by this same sysop on my talk page!

Another user sent me an e-mail telling me there would be more evidence at:

I've not got the time to check the soundness this last list of links (accidently my web server has been under DOS attack the last few days, so that makes even surfing extremely slow for me these days - I'm not even sure whether I'll be able to post this message to you: it took me half a day this morning to download my mail) --Francis Schonken 15:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flynt vs. Bush

"scimitar", did you find flynt vs bush story to be inaccurate?

"When I said that we had proof, I am referring to knowing who the girl was, knowing who the doctor was that performed the abortion, evidence from girlfriends of hers at the time, who knew about the romance and the subsequent abortion. The young lady does not want to go public, and without her willingness, we don't feel that we're on solid enough legal ground to go with the story, because she would say it never happened... One of the things that interested us was that this abortion took place before Roe v. Wade in 1970, which made it a crime at the time. I'd just like the national media to ask him (Bush) if abortion is okay for him and his family, but not for the rest of America..."

[edit] Thank you

I am so glad to see someone used my "Anon vandal" template. At first I thought it was a real waste, but you have reassured me.

You have recently vandalized a Wikipedia article, and you are now being asked to stop this type of behavior. You're welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, so long as these edits are constructive. Please see Wikipedia's Blocking policy and what constitutes vandalism; such actions are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and are not taken lightly.

We hope that you will become a legitimate editor and create an account. Again, you are welcome here at Wikipedia, but remember not to vandalize or you will soon be blocked from editing.

If you feel you have received this message in error, it may be because you are using a shared IP address. Nevertheless, repeated vandalism from this address may cause you to be included in any future punishments such as temporary blocks or bans. To avoid confusion in the future, we invite you to create a user account of your own.

Just kidding : )

V. Molotov

18:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC) Thanks. : ). , I was hoping to allow the user to see other ways to edit beside vandalism, and I thought those would be better than "Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. " or something like that. Take care,

V. Molotov

18:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ping

There is a new reply posted to your talk at User_talk:Gmaxwell#From_Ta_Bu_talk. Delete this notice at your leisure. --Gmaxwell 18:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Hopefully your warnings will work. Maybe it'll bring them to their senses. Guettarda 19:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Good work. KHM03 19:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I see. Anyway, I think it's a content dispute masquerading as a formatting dispute. Ken reverted Mick's changes, but reverted it too far. Both of them have messed up my footnoting, to some extent, but I really couldn't care less about that - it's no big deal to fix if I had a stable version to work with. Guettarda 19:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism wearing the protection of 3RR

I have had an entry on Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda regarding Able Danger deleted numerous times by people pretending not to understand the reason it is on the page. I have continued to expand the entry almost every time to improve readability and to explain how it relates to the subject. One of the those deleting the entry said I should not violate the 3RR and I just got the same message from you. No doubt this person contacted you. I have not violated the 3RR because it is not the same entry. Anyone who reads the entry or the discussion on the Talk page, which occurs in more than one place, can tell that the entry clearly relates to the article and should be included. This vandalism has to stop. Your assistance is requested.RonCram 01:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not contact Scimitar - he/she reacted on his/her own accord to a violation of the 3RR. There is no conspiracy to suppress you, and the discussion on 'talk' for that article does not at all indicate the section should be included - quite the opposite. It's largely unrelated to the article's title (Saddam/al Qaeda), from a non-corroborated, highly partisan source (WorldNet) and does not, in fact, contain verifiable facts to back the allegation. So, it's not factual, and is instead unencyclopedic. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Popups tool

Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools#Navigation_popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is paste the following into User:Scimitar/Archive 004/monobook.js:

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line 

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

popupAdminLinks=true;

Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! L upin 01:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RonCram vio

Hi there - I didn't mean to hurt your feelings by saying there had been no response to my initial report - it's just that I didn't know you had warned him/her, since the 3RR hadn't been updated accordingly. No worries - I have respect for the community's rules and have never violated 3RR (even when combatting a 14RR vio by another user!) - and I never will. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, have a good day. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 15:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk softly and wear a thick skin

The user we are dealing with is still very new, and I am sure that he means well. He's trying to be faithful, and feels surrounded by the enemy. For whatever it's worth. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not a very active admin. You didn't bungle. Thanks for your efforts to help. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse removed

Thanks. I just get wound up about it. I've got tonnes of stuff ready to add to several articles, stuff I've scanned in and researched, just this guy polices my edits in the most spiteful way. It really gets my goat. I even considered looking up his address and going round to his house, and ... well anyway. Put it like this- I want to edit the wikipedia, the project helps and amazes me everyday. I just can't do it when my every edit is "corrected" by him within 24 hours. What do suggest? I honestly am a reasonable person. Leonig Mig 18:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Krop

Greetings. An article you voted to keep in a previous VfD (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Michael Krop) has been nominated for deletion once again. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 03:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Hi there. Thanks for the support on my RfA; I was surprised at how widely supported it was. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I learn my way around the new buttons. Thanks again. -Splash 16:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] to:Scimatar

I wanted to first tell you that the Biblical scientific foreknowledge dispute has finally been resolved.

Secondly, I want to clear up something so that future potential disputes are solved more expeditiously.

I know that Wikipedia states it is not merely a tertiary source that goes along with the expert consensus and it in fact welcomes minority views. In short, Wikipedia recognizes the limitations of peer review.

Here is what Wikipedia states on its opening webpage info in response to common objections about Wikipedia:

....There is a problem with the concept of peer review in general. Many great advances in the social and natural sciences have come by challenging the status quo and, because of that, their contributions were ignored or belittled by their peers. For example, George Akerlof, Nobel Laureate in Economics in 2001, had his classic paper (for which he won the Nobel Prize) entitled "The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism" rejected by the American Economic Review for being trivial and by the Journal of Political Economy because it conflicted with economic theory. Only after submitting it to a third journal, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, did the breakthrough article become published. Wikipedia allows for discourse where other venues would not.

Now here is what Wikipedia states about minority view articles:

None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.

Why does Wikipedia says this:

The Wikipedia people were astute enough people to recognize the foibles of men and that they would use brevity/conciseness complaints in order to exclude minority views from being full expressed. Therefore, they were quite clear that minority views can go into "great detail" in minority view articles and that there is "no size limit to Wikipedia". The minority view status of this article overrules any brevity/conciseness claims. In short, Wikipedia set up a system of checks and balances so the majority view would get more attention but at the time allowing very liberal rights to minority view articles with few restrictions.

ken 17:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Android79's RfA

Thank ~~you~~ the baboon for ~~your~~ his support on my RfA and for ~~your~~ his kind and baboon-y comments. ;-) android 79 22:42, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Wikipedia Problemss

Hopefully one day if I get nominated to become an adm. nobody will try to dig this up against me

I have three big problems with Wikipedia and its policy the first being

1. A detestable lack of recognition for several users (at first including myself, but I have been recognized lately, and so have no right to complain on my own behalf but the right to complain for others - case in point User:JCarriker )

2. The ability for anon IPs to create articles, when about 70% of newly created articles by anons are deleted because they are either a. nonsense or b. plain vandalism, and many times c. patent stupidity. Thus, I propose that IPs be able to edit and to read articles, but not be able to create them - due to the simple fact that they could create a user name to do so.

3a. As yourself, the general hierarchy of Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales, in my opinion, should not have dictatorial status on this site, as he sometimes may be either too busy to handle individual users, or maybe just apathetic. (I completely understand this though, I wouldn't answer everyone if I were in his shoes either, and I do have a modicum of respect for the guy). Perhaps there should be a oligarchy of all editors with over 10,000 edits with Jimbo and Angela Beesley - I guess we could call these guys "superadmins".

3b. The jobs of beauracrat and admin. should be dissolved and just put into one position.

3c. There should be way more admins. With the power mixture stated above, the status pro number of administrators/beuracrats would be too powerful, and thus greedy. Generally speaking, all editors with 3,000+ edits, and who have generally have gotten along with/ and are beneficial to the WikiSociety should be admns., thus allowing thousands of general representatives rather than the tiny 500 or so to govern over 300,000 registered users - and perhaps several hundreds of thousands of IPs. In my opinion, there should be atleast 5,000 of these "sysops"

Under this pyramid system we have

1a. Jimbo Wales - stripped off dictatorial powers, but still having ceremonial rights (such as the Queen of England officially can stop bills from the House of Commons - but doesn't)

1b. "Superadmins" with over 10,000 edits (atleast 3,500 to articles); numbering in the hundreds - sharing Jimbo Wales current powers (i.e. stripping sysops of their sysopability)

2. Regular admins - who have combined beauracratic power - but have much higher numbers, as not to be too greedy for power. (about 5,000 - 10,000)

3. The general registered editor (300,000+)

4. The anon IP - who may not create articles (several hundreds of thousands)

5. General readers of the encyclopedia (several millions)

Thus, there would be a scheme for the one (Jimbo Wales would still have a little power over the superadmins, but not much more), the few (the superadmins and regular admins) and the many (the editors - you and I).

I hope my opinions are worth something. Molotov (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

An excellent set of suggestions. It would certainly streamline things. And no...you're not crazy. If you really are looking for the safety and security of institutionlization, why, come on out here! The weather's cooled off and the Betty Ford Center is right down the street from my job. One of my co-workers is putting his master's degree to good use by working there as an intern! Talk about an "in!" :) - Lucky 6.9 00:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your diligent attention to matters concerning my RfA, which I have formally withdrawn. The full text of my withdrawal and statement of appreciation is on the RfA page. Sincerely, Leonard G. 03:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

With regards to your about to change to support, I would appreciate it if you could post that as a remark in the RfA, just for the record. I have read your remarks concerning the WP Problem and concur, but with the suggestion that your proposal remains with oversized steps. There should be small, well defined increments, a mentoring and teaching system (possibly including testing) and other refinements. I was surprised to see how much we are in agreement given that others were referencing your (neutral) comment in their rejections. Others had suggested that my responses were argumentative and that I should just keep quiet, in which case you would probably have not been able to see my point.

As for the lack of a one button revert - I have stopped looking at my watch list. Instead, I will periodically select an article noted on my user page and review it for changes from my last visit and then think about possible article improvements. New articles will only be added as I obtain images that could use a home. This way - no see, no stress. Leonard G. 18:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibreak

Scimitar, I hope you're not away too long.. don't let the trolls and vandals get you down! Cheers, Fawcett5 20:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MIND 22:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Challenge yourself, and get ready to think!

Hello! Thank you for participating in Round Two of the Wikipedia:Mind Benders! The round will officially close on Friday, September 16, and round three (which is complete) will be open in the immediate days after that. A notice will be sent to you at least 48 hours before round three is set to open, to insure fairness. Round three offers 11 new exciting questions, this time written by Deryck C.. Please be sure to join in the fun! Also, congratulations to Riffsyphon1024 for winning our logo competition! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy using the NotificationBot (thanks to AllyUnion for designing such a great bot!). If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. If there are any problems with the bot, please alert AllyUnion. Thanks!

Automatic notification done by NotificationBot ((talk). Any bugs or errors, please report to bot owner. --NotificationBot 22:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MIND 06:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Scimitar/Archive 004! This message is to inform you that round three of Wikipedia Mind Benders will open on Wednesday, September 21, at approximately 22:00 UTC. While the opening time may vary by two or three hours, the round will open no earlier than 22:00 UTC. In addition, there are several rule changes, which will be detailed when the round opens. Everyone who answers a question correctly will receive points, but speed does give some extra points! Round three offers 11 new exciting and mind-bogglind questions, written by Deryck C.. These promise to be lots of fun! We sincerely hope you join us.

Also, congratulations to ROYGBIV for winning round two; it was an extremely close game, with the runner-up, Spondoolicks, only two points behind. Let's keep round three competitive! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Automatic notification done by NotificationBot ((talk). Any bugs or errors, please report to bot owner. --NotificationBot 06:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MIND 06:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Automatic notification done by NotificationBot ((talk). Any bugs or errors, please report to bot owner. --NotificationBot 06:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MIND 06:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Automatic notification done by NotificationBot ((talk). Any bugs or errors, please report to bot owner. --NotificationBot 06:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking

Hi Jonathan. I return to find you missing! Thank you for your kind offer of support. I had an enforced wikibreak at the beginning of the month (paid work expanded to fill time unavailable), then The Ashes filled a further 5 days, and I realised that I was relieved to be away from the wikiconflicts so I chose to stay away a bit longer. I will not stop looking in but I do not expect to resume my previous level of activity for some considerable while. I trust that all is well with you. —Theo (Talk) 18:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User Categorization

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Canada. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians of British Columbia for instructions. --Doviende 20:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for the support in my RfA. I know how controversial VfD can be, and I'm glad there are still many of us not put off by the ill-feelings it can generate. -R. fiend 19:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Earth is Flat!

When everyone believed the earth was flat, the earth WAS flat. Earth changed shape when everyone stopped believing it. Alternatively, you may also say that earth turned from flat to round, when some people strongly believed in earth's roundness. Earth may revolve around you, if you believe it. Flat-Earther 13:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maoririder Arbitration case

Hello,

The Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder/Evidence.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA!

My dear Scimitar, I simply wanted to drop by now that my RfA is closed to give you a big THANK YOU! for your kind support. It came at a very important time to me, when I felt I was being somewhat distrusted, and your confidence gave me strength. I also want to thank you for your beautiful words towards my work, and I'm very happy that you enjoyed it. I hope that we continue to be in contact in the future, and you have in me a new friend. Hugs! Shauri Yes babe? 19:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your intervention in NPOV'bg Alain Vivien. IMO, there is a concerted effort by several editors to remove criticism of France and French officials in regard to freedom of religion. --ZappaZ 17:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ic ne tellen tha honour

Thanks a ton for the barnstar (my first) (yes, my first, although there have been other awards). Oddly enough, I was working on Peterborough Chronicle with the aim of nominating it to Featured Article in a day or two. I need to supply a reference or two more, and possibly get some of the boring linguistics stuff in there, and then I think it'll be ready. However, if you think Peterborough Chronicle is something, take a look at Ormulum. Now thaes is bad pining! Thanks again. Geogre 17:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, they kind of take me for granted, until I start yelling at them (wp:an/i anyone?), and then someone tells me that I'm not being pleasant. Anyway, I got the Prose Rose and Nobel Prize from Bishonen, and I invented the Rouge Admin award (I think it's Image:Rouge-Admin.png, but I'm not sure of what capitalization I used) for myself and many, and I hear that Image:Geogre-7.png was recently affixed to AfD as a mascot, but no Barnstars until today. I'll keep it safe and mossy. Geogre 18:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Scimitar, it was so nice of you to write those words; I don't deserve them, but they inspire me to try and fulfill them. I don't think I've ever quite received such a thoughtful compliment on WP; this was very kind of you. Coming from such an obviously talented WPn, it means that much more. Thanks—enceph alon 06:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Daka

I dont want to take up much space with this... i have already posted what i have to say here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daka A response would be appreciated. Thanks for your time.

User talk:Scimitar/Archive 004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Helen Love

[edit] Barrett's Privateers

[edit] Criticism of Atatürk

[edit] Looks fine now

[edit] User:Francis Schonken

[edit] About my RfA

[edit] Hi Scimitar,

[edit] Flynt vs. Bush

[edit] Thank you

[edit] Ping

[edit] 3RR

[edit] Vandalism wearing the protection of 3RR

[edit] Popups tool

[edit] RonCram vio

[edit] Talk softly and wear a thick skin

[edit] Abuse removed

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Krop

[edit] Thanks!

[edit] to:Scimatar

[edit] Android79's RfA

[edit] Re:Wikipedia Problemss

[edit] Thank you

[edit] Wikibreak

[edit] WP:MIND 22:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MIND 06:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MIND 06:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MIND 06:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking

[edit] User Categorization

[edit] My RfA

[edit] Earth is Flat!

[edit] Maoririder Arbitration case

[edit] My RfA!

[edit] Thanks

[edit] Ic ne tellen tha honour

[edit] Re: Daka

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search