User talk:TheQuandry/Archive/2007 January
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Do not remove tags from image pages
Hello!
You removed the template {{fairusereplace}} from Image:Sg1000.jpg (diff). Removing the tag without addressing the issue on the tag if done in apparent bad faith can be considered a form of vandalism (avoidant vandalism). Providing a fair use rationale, which you did in regard to the present image, does not address the basic issue of replaceability.
Sincerely, --Oden 04:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fair Use Images
Do you know what the status is regarding Chowbok and the deletion of images? I thought it was still being debated but see that another one of my images was tagged by him. In checking history, it looks like dozens (at least) of others were also tagged within the past few days. Thanks. --OneCyclone 04:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CHICOTW
Any comments/nominations/votes at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/COTW? TonyTheTiger 05:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am thinking that maybe we could collaborate on a Chicago article of your choice that is in need of work and call it the CHICOTW. Hopefully, if we do this for a few weeks others will follow along and we can get something going. TonyTheTiger 15:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Great to get you on board. We need to make this look official. Please officially nominate either one on the above page. This will help us to encourage others to come along. TonyTheTiger 17:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your nominee is officially up for election. Place your vote here TonyTheTiger 00:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wow we have 2 unsolicited votes this week. You have some competition. TonyTheTiger 00:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your nominee is officially up for election. Place your vote here TonyTheTiger 00:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Great to get you on board. We need to make this look official. Please officially nominate either one on the above page. This will help us to encourage others to come along. TonyTheTiger 17:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for December 18th.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 51 | 18 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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 06:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Holodomor
Beware of a possibility to be added to the "anti-Ukrainian mafia" hitlist. I have recently commented at uk-wiki to several users who refuse to write articles and choose to conspire there how to take turns in revert warring to circumvent 3RR. I called on them to write articles but my calls fell in deef ears as the quick-fix fast-hand POV-pushing seems to be the only interest in the presense of several users in English Wikipedia. This is very unfortunate, and takes a lot of time from me as well, the time I would have gladly used to write more articles. Regards, --Irpen 20:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's too bad they waste all their time in revert wars. If they actually got together and discussed the topic, maybe they'd have a leg to stand on and someone would listen. As it is, they know their logic is based on emotional nationalism instead of hard facts, so they have to form revert brigades. We have to have some kind of standard and the UN seems like the most neutral one to me. Calling me "genocide denier" doesn't make any difference to me, it's just disappointing that people have to make Wikipedia into a political battlefield. TheQuandry 21:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Irpen, do not mislead other users. Ukrainian wikipedians are busy with work in their wikipedia. They are devoted to the Ukrainian project because it has not been developed enough. As a Ukrainian, I thought you also would contribute in this project, but I see you've only created user page there.
Ukrainian wikipedians have no time to write articles in English. They can only make some useful reverts here based on "hard facts", but not "emotional nationalism".
So, stop accusing others. Is it the only things that you can do? Please, write articles instead of spreading nonsense rummors about Ukrainian wikipedians. --Alex Kov 01:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- With all due respect, if you're not here to write articles, and you fully admit that you're here to make POV reverts, maybe you should concentrate on improving the Ukrainian Wiki and leave this one alone. It's not helping this site when you try to force the English-speaking world to say that the famine was a genocide meant to kill Ukrainians. In fact, that attitude is not very responsible or fair considering how many people died of hunger during that time period. TheQuandry 01:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
TheQuandry, please stop accusing me in POV. Thats against the rules. No personal attacks. OK? Thanks to the Almighty, English Wikipedia is free for reverting. There is no English monopoly here. I will continue my work in uk-wiki as well as editing biased and xenophobic remarks in this project. Bless you!--Alex Kov 04:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's not against the rules to state the truth. I've made no personal attacks. Anyway, you are mistaken about English Wikipedia being free to revert, as evidenced by User:Vernyhora and User:Saguer. Again, I implore you to take your concerns to the talk page and work it out rather than engage in revert wars. This topic is highly charged and controversial, and the current article was built after a great deal of debate and discussion and consensus is that it is currently NPOV. When the UN recognizes Holodomor as deliberate genocide, then perhaps there will be a good reason to introduce the Genocide category, but until then, only 26 nations recognize it which isn't enough to form a deciding vote in the UN. Please understand that I'm not anti-Ukraine or anything of the sort, but I'm very much in favor of proper recognition. If two kids fight on the playground and 6 kids say the skinny kid started it and 32 say the fat kid started it, who do you think the principal will believe? TheQuandry 06:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sockpuppet reports on WP:AIV
Hello! Sockpuppets are better-reported at WP:SSP than the above page as they require investigation and AIV is a quick-response alert service. Can you please move the reports to the SSP page? Regards, (aeropagitica) 21:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for December 26th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 52 | 26 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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 07:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CHICOTW nominee
Note new procedures. TonyTheTiger 21:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Oscar Frithiof Nordquist
Thanks for adding the trinomial authority link to Saimaa Ringed Seal. I suppose Nordquist refers to Oscar Frithiof Nordquist: I started a stub on him. -- Petri Krohn 17:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image debate
Do you know where the image debate is going on? I would like to chime in or at least monitor it. TonyTheTiger 22:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Happy New Year!
[edit] Washington Park Photos
Photos would be great. I would certainly appreciate anything you can come up with as would our whole CHICOTW team, I'm sure. TonyTheTiger 01:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. It is suppose to be mid 40s this weekend. If you are in the neighborhood swing by 6120 South Rhodes and get a photo for Washington Park Subdivision. TonyTheTiger 01:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 1 | 2 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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 07:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kven User
Hi, TheQuarry! I'm sorry that stuff got spilled onto you as well. I should have started a checkuser much earlier. Not much longer, I hope. --Illythr 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Craigslist cities
Hello TheQuandry. Thank you for the hard work, but did you see this discussion? Perhaps you can answer the question I posed there? What purpose does such a list serve? —EncMstr 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Reverted. TheQuandry 22:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] John Peet
What about that John Peet article - what nonsense? Who is John Peet and why does he deserve an entry in the encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit (talk • contribs)
[edit] John Peet
You wrote - "From your tone, it seems you have a bone to pick with this guy, not just saying he's not notable (which is arguable), but that he's irrelevant. The article is a stub and a fairly poorly written one at that, but it doesn't make him not-notable. By the way, please do not re-add the deletion template as it clearly states "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced". I'm not convinced of your good intentions when you show obvious POV bias on articles like Continuation War"
a) John Peet. I have no idea who John Peet is. I have never ever read an article written by that guy. I have nothing against him personally but I know many other journalists writing in different languages and do not believe that everyone of them deserves an entry in encyclopedia. There are numerous other formats for that. Besides I am not sure terms as talented (good, creative, brilliant) are objective encyclopedic criteria for article inclusion.
b) War of Continuation. I requested a change of name because the other side in that story (Russia) does not recognize the term; in fact the term is absolutely unknown as the events are righly considered a part of the second world war. There was absolutely nothing biased in my request except that I believe that the name that is deemed offensive by one side (while neutral alternatives exist); the name that is propagandist in nature; the name that was coined long after the event by one (losing) party; the name that had no contemporary circulation (at the time of events taking place) and the name that is not universally accepted (unlike say War of Austrian Succession or, let's say, Spanish Civil War) should not be used. This is a fair, sensible request for objectivity not in the contents (who would ask for that!) but at least in the entry's title. Roobit
c) You being convinced - I am not trying to convince you of anything. Roobit
John Peet - notable/notorious: The question is would a person like that deserve an entry into an encyclopedia? The answer is not. The fact that someone was interviewed by TV/magazine does or writes for living (hundreds of thousands do around the world), does not automatically make him or her an appropriate subject for an encyclopedic entry. Otherwise Encyclopedias would be just vast compilations of preposterous professional and biographic reference material. Roobit
[edit] Roobit
Hi - what is this nonsense with declaring me a sock puppet of someone else? What evidence did you have?! I don't use proxy, I have normal email address and I never ever acted as sock puppet for anyone. What is the reason for this censorship and what I consider personal slander?
---
Slander? Sock puppetry accusation - Hi - I think what's going on here is simply outrageous. I think you slandered me as sock puppet and had my page defiled. You never wrote to me and never asked anything. You just went ahead and slandered me. This is absolutely outrageous behavior. I will try to seek a remedy against this slander but Wikipedia is more or less useless if idiots can silence or slander people whose views they dislike at will Roobit
[edit] More Roobit
First of all I did not initially know who labeled me a sockpuppet, hence I did not "personally" attack you (not that you don't deserve it as you turned out to be the culprit) but I wrote my opinion about the person who slandered me by declaring me sock puppet without any warning or any attempt to communicate or ask for clarification. What I see is arbitartary form of censorhsip, discussion control through favoring one point of view (in the case of the Finnish Front in the WWII it happens to be Finnish-Nazi one), intimidation, and slander. I am not a sockpuppet of anyone. If there is no arbitration level over this TheQuandry character, then I will of course leave Wikipedia since (English) Wikipedia format is totally useless, allows censorship in disguise by declaring partricipants sockpuppets or threatening them to block them for personal attacks on malignant and anonymous (!) parties - as absolutely no one tried to talk to me or to warn me that I would be "declared" a sock puppet. Neither anyone gave me reasons why I was labeled a sockpuppet, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit (talk • contribs)
- Nonsense. You accused me openly above here in naming you a sockpuppet. Then you went around and spammed multiple pages. You called me all kinds of names and you still aren't signing your comments correctly. You leaving English Wikipedia is of no consequence to me, as we don't need any more people who don't follow the rules and spam pages with personal attacks and rants. Do whatever you like, but if you continue to make personal attacks, it will only go badly for you. TheQuandry 04:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
If you did not label me a sockpuppet then I apologize but that makes matters much worse. Anonymous users can salnder others sockpuppets? When I posted my complaints I called the slanderer "some idiot", naturally to me this person was anonymous. If I knew that you were the person who branded me a sockpuppet, then I would have asked for help against you personally. Only at the end I found a way to check who added the slanderous tag and accused me of sockpuppetry behind my back (without warning or justification), and only then I went to your discussion page. I did not spam any pages - as I did not gain any commercial benefits and did not promote myself. I posted my complaint, targeted at anonymous user who labeled me sockpuppet, because I looked and still look for advice on independent problem resolution - why am labeled a sock puppet? why no one communicated with me BEFORE labeling me a sockpuppet? Why I had no warning? Why am I given LAST warnings of ban although I never had first one. Naturally my leaving English Wikipedia would not be of any consequence to you, except that it may be a petty accomplishment of driving off a new user with views you dislike by means of slander and intimidation.
Furthemore, I do not attack real people personally (anonymous slanderers do not count) and do not leave rants. If the problem is with the Finnish front in WWII discussion then I left a well argumented request for the change of article's name or its removal as in its present form the title is offensive. I was called a KGB man, a Stalinist, a sockpuppet (labeled a sockpuppet by you apparently) but never responded in kind - I never called anyone personally a CIA man, Nazi or a sockpuppet. Roobit 05:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I DID place the sockuppet template on your user page. It doesn't mean that you ARE a sock, it only indicates a suspicion that you MIGHT be one. You deleted it, which you're not really supposed to do, but I left it blank since it seemed to make you extremely angry. I suspected you were a sockpuppet of a particular banned user because your edits were almost identical to his, even editing many of the same articles. Spamming isn't only commercial, if you keep posting the same thing to multiple pages, it's also considered spamming. Also, your story about how you didn't know it was me who placed the template isn't correct. You DID know, because you FIRST posted to my talk page. [1] with a timestamp of 02:59, January 3, 2007, and then began posting all your personal attacks, starting with this one [2] with a time stamp of 05:19, January 3, 2007. If you didn't know it was me, then why was the first post you made to my talk page, before you posted all the other junk? And you DID have a first warning. I've explained everything here. TheQuandry 14:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- First of all I did not "edit", i.e. changed contents, of anyone's page - I merely added my comments to discussion section. I never vandalized anyone's page and even when I felt that a page should be edited (or removed, or renamed) I left all my comments in the discussion section. I do not believe that the alleged owner of the sockpuppet or whoever I was supposed to be impersonating wrote in comments section about John Peet or the Finnish front in WWII (the so-called Continuation War). I came to both outrageous pieces by following external links. The idea that I was/am someone's sockpuppet - despite my own writing style, unique IP, history of reserving all comments for appropriate discussion section is absolutely preposterous. I know myself well enough to be certain that I do not resemble any Reveiro or Ribeiro or whatever was the name of that real or fictional personage. So when someone labeled me a sockpuppet - and I did not know it was you although the suspicions were of course there, as you were following my comments, and the the intent was also obvious, to slander and to impose your own sort of censorship through harassment and intimidation of new user with whose views you do not agree.. There are plenty of far more offensive commentaries in the Finnish front in WWII (the so-called Continuation War) discussion section however it was I, a new user, - who actually tried to bring some reason to the discussion by politely stating that other point of view also exists and the title in its present form is unacceptable - and who was instantly slandered and branded sock puppet. What you did was absolutely not right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roobit (talk • contribs) 19:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Art Dominique
I responded to your query there. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Got it. Thanks! TheQuandry 04:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 2 | 8 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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 07:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CHICOTW
 |
|
 |
|
You voted for the Chicago Collaboration of the week, and Near South Side, Chicago has been chosen. Please help improve it to raise it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see a list of open tasks.
|
||
|
|
|
TonyTheTiger 00:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CHICOTW Nominees
Could you please be sure to add your nominees (this week and future) to the proper stub and redlink lists on WP Chicago. It will cut down on my work if you guys get in the habit. TonyTheTiger 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your AIV report
Hello. Please report such issues to WP:ANI instead of to WP:AIV. Note that you should provide exact diffs of the offending edit(s). Sandstein 17:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 3 | 15 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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 06:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
