User talk:Sukiari
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Sukiari, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Shimgray 23:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks!
I have read a lot of the articles, but haven't contributed that much yet. I have a few ideas in mind, especially for camera and photography related articles. I hope I don't screw anything up! :-)
Sukiari 07:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Moved from userpage
Sockpuppet? What are you talking about? Are you asking me if im an Internet sock puppet? Because I ain't. I'm not the one reverting your edits on the North Korea page. Pierpontpaul2351 21:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Moved your request for rename Category:Japanese World War II people
I have moved your rename request of Category:Japanese World War II people from Requested moves to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, as that is the proper place to request renames of categories. —jiy (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Faraz anwar article
You are correct, in that the previous content was mostly a bunch of hooey, and that I didn't read through the entire thing to get a full sense of the context - I apologize for the confusion. I am generally wary of edits that remove very large sections of existing text without providing an edit summary, which was the reasoning for my revert. And while I didn't mention anything on the talk page, I did mention it in my own edit summary; my only concern was that such a large portion of text was removed with justification. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No sweat. All the old information remains in the revert history, so anybody who would like to comb through that tripe and extract the few bits of useful information is welcome to do so.
Thanks for responding. Sukiari 01:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your AfD nomination
Step 1 for How to list pages for deletion states:
Please include the word "AfD" in the edit summary and please do not mark the edit as minor.
Remember that when making future nominations. Royboycrashfan 07:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Northwoods
There's nothing in the document cited about flying a passenger jet into a tall building. What's your source? Tom Harrison Talk 02:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fuzzy Zoeller
Please do not add your personal opinions to talk pages. It is a violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPA. Thanks! Jokestress 04:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What are you implying?
That The Protocols of the Elders of Zion may be not a hoax/forgery? Is there any serious reliable source backing up your claims [1] [2] [3]? Please see WP:UNDUE. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- What the original 'protocols' which the printed versions descend from are you talking about? A number of authoritative investigations in the course of the last 100 years proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the text is a "literary forgery", "hoax", "plagiarism" and "fraud". Your wording "widely regarded as" suggests that there is a real possibility that the Protocols is a factual document. Please review our policies concerning original research, undue weight and verifiability. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] you asked the question
"Are you really a Legend?" The correct answer is YES. Lugnuts 07:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lens materials
I'd love to see a good bit on exotic lens materials, but it needs to be sourced. I'm wondering what basis you are using for the materials you are listing; if you'll point it out, I'll be happy to edit up the reference. Is there something relevant in the Italian doc? Looks like, but it's hard to tell if it supports what it's attached to. Dicklyon 03:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uglor
You appeared to have nominated Uglor for deletion and added a link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 20, but didn't actually open a deletion debate. I hope I haven't been too bold in correcting your mistake. Next time follow the directions on the AFD template.
I will also reiterate a previous point on this page, to include "AFD" in your edit summary when placing {{subst:afd}} on a page. shoy (words words) 16:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your user page
Please be aware that the material you have recently added to your userpage about Durova and the secret mailing list might bring unwanted attention to you and bring accusations, which I am not making, of harassment. I would recommend that you remove it to avoid trouble. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of this possibility. If indeed I am subjected to harassment because I have publicly disapproved of these dishonorable and gestapoesque tactics then I will probably have to start editing the WP anonymously, or write the project off altogether as a lost cause.
Sukiari 10:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- hmmm, I don't know you or what you stand for, but good for you! This atmosphere of wikichill is really awful, and just more fodder for the press. Stifle (apt name), how will you feel if the next story includes people running around warning people to shut up or be banned? Do you think that will help Wikipedia? I'm not meaning this personally, but you really need to consider this. It doesn't look good, at least to me. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 05:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Arbcom might as well stand for Arbitrary Coordinated Maneuvering. Sukiari (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from using loaded terminology such as Gestapo. The only effect of that language is to poison discussion. If you want to discuss the Durova matter, do so with civility. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Good tip Carl. I wonder if anybody on the secret list ever used offensive terminology? I guess we'll never know, as there are claims that there is no archive of the list (although I know this to be false). Sukiari 21:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Secret ArbCom list
Hi - I saw your post vote against Raul654 about that. What is it? --David Shankbone 01:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sukiari. In response to your oppose of Raul654, I think you're confusing two different mailing lists. Raul founded the arbcom-l list, a list that, while private, is accountable, has a known list of members (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Mailing list), and is not at all a secret. I don't think he had anything to do with the cyberstalking mailing list you're concerned about, and there's a big difference between the two. Hope that helps. Picaroon (t) 01:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tragic
I happened upon your note on BillCJ's talk page, and wanted to let you know that edit-warring will not help you get your way. Please do not threaten one, or engage in one. If you have a legitimate problem, bring it to the wider community, but saying "I can revert more than you" is no way to win an argument. --Golbez (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- My own opinion is irrelevant. My problem was only with the tactics you were threatening to use. --Golbez (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Poor form
I appreciate your right to "defend" articles but it appears to be very poor form to accept and continue to promenade a barnstar on your user page from a user who has "rewarded" you for being uncivil on that articles talk page.--VS talk 22:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image source problem with Image:MaxHeadroom copy.svg
Thanks for uploading Image:MaxHeadroom copy.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 14:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
I just wanted to say thanks for your persistence in defending the truth of the Dana Jacobson article. You are a gentleman and a scholar.--Esprit de corps (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar | ||
To all who shall see these presents, greeting: Know Ye, that reposing special trust and confidence in the fidelity and abilities of User:Sukiari, I do present this Wikipedian this award for resilience in the editing of the Dana Jacobson article. Esprit de corps (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC) |