User talk:Big Bird/November 2007 - March 2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No problem

My first instance of a double redirect (Serb Chetniks Rescue U.S. Pilots during WW II was redirecting to Serb Chetniks Rescue U.S. Pilots during World War II); just made both pages redirect to Operation Halyard and that fixed it. BrokenSphereMsg me 05:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Contempt toward officials‎

Hey there.

Thanks for looking out for the 'pedia, but I'm affraid Contempt toward officials‎ isn't elegible for speedy deletion (at least not under the G12 (copyvio) criterion): the source of the text is in the public domain because it is a work of the United States government. — Coren (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The article itself relly contains nothing more than quotations. Whatever it is that it talks about, it's not in any kind of context. Do you think it would qualify under patent nonsense ("no meaningful content") or is it even worth nominating for deletion? Maybe it should just be tagged as needing improvement? SWik78 01:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it can be speedied under any of the criteria, but you might propose it for deletion. A simple {{subst:prod|Article contains nothing but a quotation from the uniform military code}} or something like that might do the trick. Prod-ed articles are deleted after some period of time without having to go through the hassle of an AfD, unless someone comes up to the bad to salvage it. — Coren (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Alan Veingrad

Is it necessary to quote the text from the reference in the article itself? Isn't that the purpose of the reference - to provide text in support of a particular claim madein the article? SWik78 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The text has been provided to demonstrate what portion of the reference supports the claim made in the article. While I usually don't use the Template:Cite news, the "quote" parameter is intended to provide a "Relevant quotation". This format is regularly used in scholarly books and other works. While I will frequently include such quotes within a references, and agree that it is not "necessary", there is no reason to remove it where used. Alansohn 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You had added "Also, the article itself makes no mention of what Shlomo means." The article at this point included a statement that "He now uses his Hebrew first name, 'Shlomo' (which means 'King Solomon')..." With a wikilink to Shlomo, anyone who wants to learn more about the name has the information available there. Furthermore, as indicated "Shlomo" does not *mean* "King Solomon", though it is the same Hebrew name. Alansohn 20:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Elias Chacour

Thanks for your contribution to the article. The edits you reverted, while made in good faith by some editor, were POV and full of weasel words like "very controversial" and "some ...". However, they did contain some useful information. I tried to salvage what I could; please let me know what you think. Cheers, Majoreditor 18:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

While the article itself contains no more of those weasel words, I still don't think that the reference provided [1] qualifies as NPOV. The source text contained a summary of Chacour's speech in which the following statements were made regarding issues Chacour didn't speak about:
  • ...and how many Palestinians who "just want to return to their land" did not own the land but were instead tenants, often victimized by their own people.
The quote "just want to return to their land" is by Chacour and it seems to be used in a somewhat sarcastic sense. At the end of that sentence, the article offers a link to another article on the same website titled Whose Land Is It? [2]to offer an insight into the Israel-Palestine land dispute, which is one of the most hotly contested political and religious disputes in the last 60 years of history. That article, after explaining that Arafat refused Barak's offer in 2000, makes this overly simplified statement:
  • Apparently, the Palestinian leadership sought no fair two-state solution. They wanted everything—with no Israel at all.
Another statement in referenced text, again referring to what was not said in his speech, says:
  • Nor did he give any credence to the need today for a security barrier to protect Israelis from random and horrific terrorist attacks, and how that barrier has vastly reduced both Israeli and Palestinian deaths.
I just don't believe that this article is neutral enough to be given any weight as a useful reference. I won't remove it but I don't think it should stay. SWik78 19:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, SWik. I agree that one online article on a low-traffic website isn't enough to qualify Chacour as a "controversial figure." For that matter, Chacour is one of the least controversial Middle Eastern figures, given his role as a peacemaker and bridge-builder. Majoreditor 18:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

64.148.190.131 (talk · contribs)

I dunno, how long do you think the block should be? It's a school IP, so it's probably a lot of kids rather than one really persistent one. I hate to inflict collateral damage with long blocks, because it could prevent new users from getting involved. I generally just escalate slightly from the length of the last block. Peace, delldot talk 21:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the last edit to Ethiopia was pretty awful. And the Rose Hill, Kansas thing is pretty compelling. But still, since it's a school IP, the fact that they're always coming back could be that a lot of kids are constantly trying to edit, and there could be good editors there too. How about this: I'll leave myself a note in my to do list to check their contribs after this block is up. If they're vandalizing again, I'll block again, and if it's a similar pattern, it'll be a longer block. Your note on my talk page will remind me to check on them from time to time after that, too. Peace, indeed! delldot talk 22:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

welcome tagging

Hi, SWik. I just noticed you used a {{welcome}} tag on an annons page. I recently found out there is also an {{ipwelcome}}, that also notes that it might be a good idea to make an account. It might be good to switch to that one for annons. Martijn Hoekstra 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Massad

Hello SWik78. Thanks for the message. It was my intention to simply restore my own edits which I believed had been caught up in what falls just short of an edit war. It wasn't my intention to favor either side. In fact, you'll see that I maintained all the deletions to the "Controversial views" section (and the removal of the "Accusations of Anti-Semitism and Denials" header). The two edits by Morningside Clio were simply present in my original edit, and so were restored with all the rest. That said, I'm not sold on their inclusion (and I'd considered requesting a citation for "born in Jordan of Christian parents"). Seems a flaw to have a biographical article in which the subject's birthplace is not mentioned, but given the history of this article it would seem a reliable source is needed. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Inapropriate content

I sent User talk:Mattj5095 a message. If he continues recreating those pages, he'll be blocked. Thanks. Spellcast (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Academy and Copyright

Hey there.

Actually, an article is eligible for G12 if it's an improper copy independently of other factors. In that particular case, your assessment is perfectly correct— It's a copyright violation and should be speedily deleted. It might also be deleted as advertisement (G11) but the copyright violation is the most important of the two.

The last element in the G12 test (assertion of free use / public domain / etc) is just that: the article isn't eligible for speedy deletion if it asserts that the copy is proper. For instance, a statement stating:

Parts of this article taken from http://www.example.org/foo/bar with permission

in the article is such an assertion, so the article could not be speedily deleted (but that doesn't mean that the assertion is correct, or sufficient— only that the article needs to be checked further and possibly sent to WP:CP).

Hope that helps. — Coren (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Gisele Bündchen Stock Index

I'll write more about it. Thanks for contacting! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.157.48.2 (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

66.76.67.66 (talk · contribs)

Hi!

I hope you don't mind but I deleted a vandalism warning you left on this user's page for unconstructive edits he made to Kenny Chesney. The reason I deleted them is because the user made those edits way back on November 5 and it kind of defeats the purpose warning him about it now. But rest assured, I'm keeping an eye on him because he has made an edit or two today that are can't really be classified as constructive. Thanks for looking out for 'pedia!

Peace! SWik78 (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You should warn anonymous users on all edits that they have made that can be reasonably ascribed to the same person or group of people. I disagree that 5th november is too long ago. You might have a point if the user had vandalised a few months ago, because then it could well have been a different person. Only if the user has made positive edits or if the identity cannot be guaranteed should vandalisations be ignored. It's about whether the particular address is positive or negative to the wikipedia or not.WolfKeeper (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Response by AWDRacer

Hey Swik78!

Thanks for leaving a message. I'm sorry I am replying to you so late because I didn't log into Wikipedia after my hopeless efforts to remove that page lol. Added to that, I don't usually get messages haha. Anyway, I tried to do everything that was legal within Wikipedia because the guy either doesn't seem to get it or he's just doing it over and over and over again regardless of what happens. That being said, I think you're right - I might have put something on the wrong page. Oh well, I'll just leave it there... hahaha. I don't have any ethnic connection to the poet; I only ran into that page accidentally when I was looking up information on History about the leader at that time period who had a similar name. Do you think we should nominate it again? Perhaps we should let the moderators know?

Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AWDRacer (talk • contribs) 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

Thanks for the note. I have gone ahead and lengthened the block to 72 hours. Since the IP is shared, I am hesitant to go too long--it would do no good since the user will switch IPs and the block will only impact someone else (blocks are always intended as a protective, not punitive measure). I didn't see evidence of useful contributions from the IP, so hopefully any impact will be minimal. Thanks again, and let me know if you have any other concerns. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the users you listed, I think you're correct that they are all vandalism-only accounts. I have blocked all of them as such. Thanks and keep up the great work. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Windsor redirect

Definitely a reason for it to be deleted, I'd say, but, as you realized, not speedy. You can add it to Redirects for Discussion. нмŵוτнτ 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Facebook valuation

If you do the math between what Microsoft invested in Facebook and the % stake in the company it was given, it now means that Facebook is worth well over $15 billion. 204.246.237.129 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.237.129 (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Christy Marks

An article that you have been involved in editing, Christy Marks, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christy Marks. Thank you.

This is a trial of the AfD notification bot. If you found this message helpful, annoying or have anything else to say about it please leave a message at User_talk:BJBot, thanks! --BJBot (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Serb propaganda

Hey SWik, got your note. Eeesh, sounds terrible. Even the title 'Serb propaganda' sounds POV (But I haven't looked at the article page yet, so I can't say whether I agree with your assessment). Sounds like there needs to be more community input on this. I think you've done the right thing challenging the info you have a problem with on the talk page, hopefully discussion will get started there; maybe give it a couple days. I'm of the firm belief that we should insist on sources for anything likely to be challenged (though you wouldn't want to use this as a beatstick). If nothing productive occurs with the discussion, you're going to have to take it through dispute resolution. I'd file an RfC. If you're right about the blatant POV pushers, they won't get away with it -- the community should fully back you. I'm not good at content disputes, never having been in one myself (and being a big chicken), but an RfC should bring the attention of some neutral admins who can deal with the situation if it comes to that (that is, if people are going against consensus to the point of disruption). Definitely keep me updated on the progress and let me know if the discussion helps or if there's anything I can do. I probably won't really get involved myself, but I can help bring it to the attention of others if it's deemed necessary. Thanks for working to keep the 'pedia neutral. Good luck! Peace, delldot talk 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi SWik78, thank you for your input regarding Coatrack on the Serb propaganda article. I've long felt the article is a mix of different alleged and real individual cases of Serb propaganda in general rather than a coherent article based on a proper source. I've suggested the article for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serb propaganda) and proposed an alternative, more focused, article on Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia based on research by a Prof. Renaud De la Brosse. I don't think this edit conflict is likely to be resolved without help from outside mediation. I've asked Vassyana, who is mediating a conflict I have with the same editors involved here (The Dragon of Bosnia and Gandy Gandy), to take a look at mediating edit conflict with these two persons on a wider set of articles: including the Serb propaganda article. First, a question: do you think it worthwhile to treat these edit conflict as a group rather than individually? Second, your engagement in these articles/mediation processes would be much appreciated.Osli73 (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing my talk page, please

I'm not vandalizing anything at Gisele Bündchen article. I just put back the original picture, that has been there for a long time. Who is changing the picture is Cantarevolare, not me.

So why didn't you went to his talk page and told him not to change the picture? Why?

Stop vandalizing my talk page, please. Opinoso (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think I am vandalizing your page by posting a warning about your constant reverting of pictures. The procedure really should be to discuss on the article's talk page rather than just change it to a picture that you like better and justify it by saying in the quote summary reverted ugly picture to a better one. A better [picture], as you say, or the best picture is not the one that looks the best in someone's opinion. The best picture is one on which most people agree to keep in the article. My warning, however, probably should have included the fact that since yesterday you reverted the same picture on the following articles as well:
Since January 1 you have made no other edits to any article other than reverting that particular picture.
As far as Cantarevolare (talk · contribs) is concerned, you're right about him deserving a warning about this as well if he does it again. I didn't give him a warning today because he had made no edits today. You are, however, incorrect when you say that he is the only one changing your picture. You have reverted edits by the following users since yesterday:
Just to clear things up, I have no opinion on Giselle's pictures and do not have a favourite one, which is the reason that I never changed your or anyone else's choice of a profile picture of her, so I'm satified with any picture whatsoever on her article as long as it meets Wikipedia's image criteria. The reason I gave you the warning is that you are engaging yourself and others in an edit and revert war by changing the page and reverting others' edits the way you do. Technically, you could have already been blocked according to the 3 revert rule for the 3 reverts you made to Giselle's article starting on January 1 at 04:50 and ending on January 2 at 02:17 but I thought it would be more appropriate to issue a warning rather than to request a block this time because I am still assuming good faith from you in your edits.
So I will ask you to, please, discuss anything you don't agree with before you just arbitrarily change it to your own preferred version. Those kinds of reverts can prove to be very disruptive because, as you've probably found out so far, not everyone agrees with you on which picture is Giselle's best looking picture and if everyone was just allowed to act like that Wikipedia's articles could become very disrupted.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns and I truly hope you don't take this personally.
SWik78 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: attack page template warning

Hey SWik78. Regarding the attack page warning you left at User talk:Drewbitha, when the attack page's title itself is an attack, as that one was, by posting the article name through the template you're leaving behind the some of the defamatory content which I don't believe should be done, just as we make sure to not leave any defamatory content in deletion summaries when we delete attack pages. For that reason I have removed the name of the article from your warning. User is blocked by the way. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

cat deletion

Sure, I think that would be perfectly appropriate. I mean, if it turns out that there's a lot of people that fit in the category, it can always be recreated later, right? The instructions at WP:CFD#How to use this page are pretty clear, but definitely let me know if you need any help nominating it. By the way, you add a colon in front of the category or image name when you're linking cats or images like this: [[:Image:duck.jpg]] (otherwise you'll include the page you're linking on in the category, or put the actual image on the page) Peace, delldot talk 16:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Addition to Triumph Motorcycles

My addition to Triumph Motorcycles is not libelous because the statement is true. The number of independent Triumph dealers within the US has dramatically decreased because of Triumph's poor dealer relationships. Additionally, numerous dealers would attest to the incredibly horrid treatment they have received from Triumph. Wikipdedia.org is not supposed to be a site dedicated to glorifying its subjects, thus, dissatisfaction with a company should also be reported.

  • Note: Next time you accuse someone of being libelous, learn how to spell libelous first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linop2 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
My reply is here. SWik78 (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My addition to Triumph Motorcycles is not libelous because the statement is true. The number of independent Triumph dealers within the US has dramatically decreased because of Triumph's poor dealer relationships. Additionally, numerous dealers would attest to the incredibly horrid treatment they have received from Triumph. Wikipdedia.org is not supposed to be a site dedicated to glorifying its subjects, thus, dissatisfaction with a company should also be reported.

My apologies on my "libellous" spelling comment. You are absolutely right, the word "libellous" can be spelled two ways. However, you are not correct with your definition of libel. An opinion, however harmful it may be, can never be libel. Only blatant disregard of the truth with intent to harm the subject can be considered libel. In fact with regards to libel, Wikipedia.org stated that, "Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable." In addition, my note on the Triumph Motorcycles page of Wikipedia.org is not simply opinion, but actual truth.

I did, however, hastily create the addendum to the page without citing proper sources. In the future, look for the same addition with proper citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linop2 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply is here. SWik78 (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

Yeah, sorry about that. I should use edit summaries a lot more often, becuase I don't want to cause a major disruption with unexplained edits. Thanks. (Respond on my talk) ThundermasterTRUC 14:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Eqmentor

{{db-repost}} only applies to articles that have been deleted via WP:AFD, not speedied or prodded. Just a heads-up. shoy 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Brap

For the nth time, it's not vandalism. Brap is a slang phrase with no reference to Enochian Angels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.164.162.124 (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that you may know something that myself or the other editors who reverted your edits and left vandalism warning notices on your page don't know. However, it is impossible for us to find out that you do know something if you don't discuss your point on the article's talk page or leave a clear explanation of why you did what you did in the edit summary. You also blanked the same article twice today without any explanation. That makes it even harder for us to assume good faith because it is seen as unconstructive. I hope this explains the situation a little more. If you are willing to contribute to the article in a constructive manner, feel free to ask me for help on how to do that. Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Grace Talarico di Capace‎

The Grace article has been vandalsized and is no longer in any kind of accuarte form. form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.141.157.233 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks OK right now. If vandalism continues, you can request semi-protection. You will, however, not be able to edit the article from an IP. You will need an account that is at least 4 days old to be able to edit a semi-protected page. Maybe you should look into getting an account if you're going to be serious about contributing. Let me know if I can help. SWik78 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please put a semi-protect on the Grace T. article. It appears that our vandal is back. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.142.236.58 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can vandal 24.247.57.44 be blocked and can the Grace Talarico di Capace page be semi-protected. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.141.157.192 (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Extensive and continued vandalism is taking place to the Grace T. page. Needs to be semi-protected and vandal blocked. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.141.156.67 (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a final warning on the talk page‎ of the user who's vandalizing that page. One more unconstructive edit out of him and he will be blocked. As far as semi-protecting the page, it won't happen because the vandalism isn't heavy enough and it's all coming from one person. Once he stops disrupting the article I'm sure things will calm down. In the meantime, I would really encourage you to create an account. You seem to have a dynamic IP because the exact IP address changes from time to time and I would have a hard time leaving you a message if I had some news for you. Either way, keep up the good work. SWik78 (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you for your attention, and I will create an account right after this message. Great Work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.142.236.89 (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for protecting my userpage for me. As you may have noticed, I had warned that user, and I just thought of the fact that he might vandalize my userpage. When I got there, the vandalism had already been reverted. So again, thanks for the help. Thingg⊕⊗ 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Orion (constellation)

Hello. I wish to nominated the article Orion (constellation) to be semi-protected because of the extreme number of anonymous vandals editing that article. Considering it's a high profile article, an article children would be likely to look up, the detrimental effects of the vandalism to how Wikipedia looks as a whole, and the proportion that most edits are vandalism and reversions, I think semi-protection against anonymous users would be appropriate. Since the process requires a consensus on the article's talk page and you are one of the registered users who have reverted vandalism recently, I am writing in the hopes that you will go to the talk page and agree to the semi-protection. If we can get a convincing consensus, we can continue the process to the next step. Thanks for your time. --Bark (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Platform (concept)

I do not really understand the reasoning of removing the Platform (concept) page. There is a clear difference between a computing platform and platform as an idea (like Internet is more than just a software platform). I was to late to 'hangon' - so the redirect page is now in place ... As a minimum I would suggest redirection to the Platform (computing) page - so I can add a better description of the platform concept in that page as a sub-paragraph ...

Evert r (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tikiwont (talk · contribs) is the one who redirected the article to the disambiguation page so you may want to contact him about that. I merely nominated the article for speedy deletion based on my opinion that it offered nothing new that wasn't already presented in Platform (computing). But if you can present some new information that is original to all the other articles listed on the Platform disambiguation page, you can still do it. The page you created is not deleted. You can click here and start rewriting your article. Make sure that you type below the line that says redirect Platform and don't remove the line until your article is complete. Good luck. SWik78 (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Proeski the Aromanian

Hi. Does a youtube video of him singing in Aromanian constitute a reliable source? Anybody who isn't Aromanian singing in Aromanian isn't too common. BalkanFever 05:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply is here. SWik78 (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Ha ha, thanks for that. =)

— brighterorange (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

re. behaviour of User:Grandy Grandy

Hi, the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia case imposes stricter requirements regarding civility and behavior on Balkan related articles. Could you please keep an eye on Grandy Grandy, he's becoming quite aggressive and rude on the Bosnian Mujahideen talk page. Example: [3]. CheersOsli73 (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AFD withdrawal

You don't even have to do that. Just state that you withdraw the nomination, and an admin will come along and close it properly. You can put it right under your original nomination, that would probably make it most noticeable. Peace, delldot talk 17:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Chrysler Supercar deleted?

that was just plain uncalled for. the relevance is where it fits among the annals of american rock n roll. if it's too loud, then you're too old for rock n roll! now put it back, so as I can go on about my business discussing the evolution of modern rock in the 90s. thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcsupercar (talk • contribs)

My reply is here. SWik78 (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Crackpot theories

Adnanmuf is entering complete nonsense in these articles. He clearly understands nothing about DNA research, and has invented most of what he is writing. Are you prepared to vouch for the accuracy of his work? Ed Gies (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

From article Palestinian people, you have removed large portions of text that was sourced and referenced. I know absolutely nothing about DNA or DNA research nor do I know anything about Adnanmuf (talk · contribs) but removal of properly sourced and referenced text should, in my opinion, be discussed on the article's talk page and removed only if there is a concensus reached. Go here and explain why you think these are crackpot theories or nonsense and see what others think. SWik78 (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't "sourced and referenced" at all. If you had read the talk page, as I have, you would see that the author is inserting his own incoherent theories, and the sources he use often don't even refer to what he says. In other cases he completely contradicts the findings of the sources he brings. Do you understand DNA research? Are you prepared to vouch for what he says? Are you prepared to at least read the Talk page in question? Ed Gies (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In my previous statement I c-l-e-a-r-l-y stated the following: I know absolutely nothing about DNA or DNA research nor do I know anything about Adnanmuf (talk · contribs) yet you find the need to ask me the questions Do you understand DNA research? Are you prepared to vouch for what he says? after I made my statement. I don't quite understand the point you were trying to make by asking me questions that I already answered. In addition, I did read the talk page and I can find nothing where an editor admits of inserting incoherent theories. That is your opinion, not fact. Either way, my point was to discuss what changes you might make to an article if there exists a possibility that your edits will be challenged. If you don't discuss your proposed changes (before you make them that is, not afterwards) you are likely to get engaged into an edit or revert war with the user of opposing view. I'm discussing Wikipedia policies and using them towards creative editing, I'm not discussing genetics. I think both of you think you're right and the other one is wrong and if both of you started reverting each other's edits, articles will get disrupted. Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

article EICASLAB

Caporaletti (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Dear SWik78(talk), thank you very much for having withdraw the nomination of the article EICASLAB. I use a lot Wikipedia "as a user" for finding very useful information that can help me in my scientific work, but it is the first time that I try to write an article as an editor. The talks with you have been very usuful for me to better understand how to make an article worthy of an encyclopedia. In the future I will try to do my best to work in this direction. Thank you again. Best regards Gabriella

your note

Thank you very much for your note to me. I'm doing my best to copy-edit and improve in slight ways some articles, but I really don't know my way around the innards of Wikipedia. Your feedback was helpful. Grantsky (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: User categories

You may be interested in participating in the discussion at User talk:Hyacinth/User categories#Proposal. Hyacinth (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Your question

No worries, it's always a pleasure getting a note from you. I think you're absolutely in the right, and any Wikipedian involved in the community would agree with you. I'll go ahead and remove the content again, and leave another note on their talk page explaining it to them (good job doing that, by the way). If they keep it up, I guess we'll have to report to WP:ANI or something, but they seem like they're really trying to improve the article, so I doubt it will come to that. I doubt either of us will have to rv more than 3 times, anyone else that sees it would also revert it. Good work looking out for the integrity of the 'pedia. Peace, delldot talk 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, hopefully that will take care of it. I'll keep an eye on the article, but let me know of anything I miss. Peace, delldot talk 15:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Aww! Thank you so much, you are super sweet :D delldot talk 15:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, they reverted me too, but then they came up with a somewhat reliable source (not awesome, but not livejournal either). I guess I'm going to let it go, since they seem to be making productive changes. Too bad they won't communicate though. Give me another heads up as events merit. Peace, delldot talk 15:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, they'll probably get themselves into trouble unless they can play well with others. Peace, delldot talk 16:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Deja vu

Wow, same exact situation, huh? I'll talk to them too, hopefully they'll be more communicative. Peace, delldot talk 22:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the sources aren't good and the info can't be included without good sources. But looking at the article now, it looks like the sentence in question is not in there. Am I missing it? I agree that we shouldn't revert war, we'll bring it to others' attention if it comes to that. Peace, delldot talk 17:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, how did I miss that? Baffling. Well, I've removed the section and left a note on the talk page, hopefully it will work out amicably. Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 01:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment on the sock's username, I guess it's the next best thing to being funny when I'm actually trying to :-P
Yeah, looks like the warring has died down :) though it's too bad it only happened after I resorted to threats of reporting them to ANI :-P If they start back up and you do end up needing to report them, feel free to use some or all of what I started at my sandbox with or without attribution. Thanks again for guarding against insertion of rumors into articles :) Peace, dell "so glad I don't edit Mariah Carey articles" dot talk 10:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Clutton, Cheshire

Please don't be overzealous with nonsense tags- nonsense is unreadable, not just 'a bad article'. A page that is obvious made for the purposes of testing, or made with bad intentions can be speedied as test pages and vandalism respectively, but that article was written in a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia, and 30 seconds writing and a Google search later, the article is fine. Deletion is not always the answer. J Milburn (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply is here. SWik78 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

re-creation of speedy deleted page

User_talk:Ibestefyo has re-created Jenni Potts after it was speedy-deleted by you on 11. The subject's importance or significance has not been provided anywhere that I could see, so the same criteria for deletion should still apply. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply is here. SWik78 (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll nominate on a few days. Too tired today to learn the procedure --Enric Naval (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Regime

I appologise for the reversion of the error edit. I did not not mean to do this and kept a couple of your other edits. I do spell things wrongly quite alot. I just spell it like it sounds you see. Its not absolutely intentional... even if I do think the whole spelling correctness thing is unfortunate. Still, I understand it is nescessary to be at some sort of standard. Maybe one day Regeim will be correct... maybe not. For me the e sound is in the middle of the word. Its all just some confusion I reckon.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Dear SWik78,

At the beginning of February we discussed about the article EICASLAB and you gave me a lot of useful indications and suggestions. After that, I have seen in the history section of the article [4] that another person edited the article to start to improve it. But I have also seen some days ago that a new tag of "advertising" has been placed on the article by another colleague. If I have well understood, the tag was placed by the same colleague (PeaceNT) that wrote that the result of our discussion was keep[5]. So I suppose that he has read our discussion. Now, can you give me a suggestion on how to proceed in the more suitable way, respecting the wikipedia policies? My first feeling is that it is better that I do not start any modifications and/or discussion about the article: other people can improve it. On the other hand, if nobody makes modifications, perhaps this tag can bring to the deletion of the article... Thank you again for your suggestion. Best regards Gabriella Caporaletti (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply is here. SWik78 (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear SWik78,

thank you again for your very useful and extensive indications. I will review the text and I will work on removing sentences that can give indications about the goodness of the product. Thank you again for your help! Best regards Gabriella Caporaletti (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

EDIT WAR

User Opinoso don´t respond to my messages about stop deleting a sourced and researched image I provided for the article Rio de Janeiro. He just stated on the history page that the picture is not aestethically good to the article, and "anyway, old flags are not important". Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domaleixo (talk • contribs) 17:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Account Creation blocks

Hi Swik78. You ask a very good question. Account creation blocked means that new accounts cannot be created from any IP that the blocked editor has used in the recent past. I don't know the exact definition of "recent past" but its around 3 months. If a blocked editor was on a dynamic IP, its possible for them to create a new account if they get allocated a new IP that they hadn't been recently given.

On the specifics of the Brexx and Mimibianc, thanks for the heads up, I'll take a look at their contributions. Best, Gwernol 19:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Mimibianc's edits are a bit suspicious. However we don't have enough to conclude anything with certainty at the moment. Some editors work for a long time as anonymous IPs before getting an account, while others just read a lot (including policies) before editing, so its entirely possible for an editor's first few edits to seem to come from an "old hand". It might indicate they are a blocked editor using a different account, or it could be perfectly innocent - this is a good example of where assuming good faith is a really good thing to do. That said, I will keep an eye on the developing situation, and if it does turn out to be Brexx, then the appropriate action will be taken. Again, thanks for the help. Best, Gwernol 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, I agree there's something to be suspicious about here :-) On the other hand, a lot of users write like that: many of them are young and/or used to less formal communication styles. I wouldn't be comfortable taking any action at this stage. If we get further evidence, I'm definitely open to reviewing. Best, Gwernol 20:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... that is a little worrying. One way to approach this would be to leave a very gently worded query on Mimibianc's talk page asking if they have ever had another account. I still think you need to be careful to assume good faith at this stage, but it might be worth asking to see. If it is Brexx he/she may not realize that sockpuppet accounts cannot be used to avoid a block, in which case it might be as simple as correcting this misapprehension and moving on. Just a thought, Gwernol 21:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw your SSP case and I am increasingly coming to the view that you are right. By the way, you need to inform both Brexx and Mimibianc about the case. See step 5 of the instructions at the top of WP:SSP. Thanks, Gwernol 16:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As you've seen I've posted a notification (thanks for fixing it!) on Brexx's talk page and also unprotected that page. Best, Gwernol 17:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My userpage

Thanks for the revert, I left a message to the vandal thanking him for his curiosity regarding my sexual preferences. I hope I didn't bite him too hard... SGGH speak! 20:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

*high five for hilarity* this is such cop-humour. Happy editing SGGH speak! 20:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

External links on M (fragrance)

Hi SWik, here's my thoughts on M (fragrance). First the easy bit. The two poster images uploaded by User:Mimibianca definitely cannot be used on the article. The poster fair use terms clearly disallow use for "illustration purposes" which is clearly what they are being used for. If they are added back, revert on sight. I have done this a couple of times already.

The [6] link is a little less clear cut. WP:EL says: "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." and you could argue that the elizabetharden.com is the relevant official site here. However, linking to shop.elizabetharden.com is indeed a direct link to a store which isn't good, and isn't directly relevant to this particular fragrance. A link to [7] would be better since it goes directly to the product info. This is still ultimately a shop, but its (as far as I can tell) the only "official" web page about that product, so this seems ok. Best, Gwernol 21:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Mimibianca 3RR

Could you go ahead and report it to the 3RR board Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR? I am an involved editor, so should not block the user. Gwernol 14:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dreamspy

Thanks for the help and advice. Much appreciated. Dreamspy (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Warcrimes

sorry,i'm still busy with a different article.feel free to ad the nationality to serbian victims.I wasn't done with that article either.i'm writin a large article about croatian war.I'll show it to you when I'm done on that discussion page so we can check it for neutrality and accuraty.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


An important factor in Croatia's preservation of its pre-war borders was donations from members of the Croatian diaspora.

Dude,i don't get this. How can any diaspora or any organisation be important for preservation of the borders?? As I told you the important factor was the Yugoslav constitution change in 1974 which allowed any republic inside Yugoslavia to become independant in it's AVNOJ borders which were set in 1945. Would you please explain that???--(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't insert that text into the article and, to be honest, I'm not 100% positive of what it really means. Feel free to remove it. SWik78 (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

THX.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


Someone has changed the text again into the old version with the Tudjman quote with the same refference.I can't delete it.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay then...

I guess my polite suggestion was out of order.George Washington Head (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A long string of Brexx-alikes

Yes, I think J.looo is definitely suspicious, but there isn't enough to be sure yet. I have my eye on several new editors who appeared shortly after Let's Migrate was blocked, including User:J.looo and User:Fsoaresl, plus several IPs. I agree with you that it is highly likely that Brexx will continue to create sockpuppet accounts. As we identify them, we'll shut them down. For now, let's keep an eye on the various potential mini-Brexxes and see if compelling evidence presents itself. Best, Gwernol 15:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Frank Kratovil

Regarding my post you marked for deletion. I wanted to look him up and was surprised to see no article. I live in the district and considering there are existing wikipedia articles for races that will not even be close but this race, that is even listed by wikipedia as potentially competitive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections%2C_2008) there needs to be an article on this candidate. He also is an elected official currently (and was a statewide elected official)so that reason for deletion should be removed. I'm new to making wikipages and would appreciate advice on how to make the page more legitamate.

Also there are a number of spots around wikipedia that I saw where his name is mentioned but there was no hyperlink to his page like there normally is. Is that done immediately or do I do it? And how would I do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahimahi1414 (talk • contribs)

My reply is here. SWik78 (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

KnightLago (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Srbosjek article

those external links were deleted long time ago,because the are very POV.Jared Israel articles are full of hate towards all Serbia's opponents during the Balkans war.The reasons were given on the discussion page. Jared Israel is a Srebrenica Genocide denier,Bosnian Serb concentration camps denier and even the Srebrenica execution video denier. Bulajic is a Srebrenica denier as well. the UN links have nothing to do with the article because they are reffering to the 90's war and have nothing to do with the ww2 era and the article is about that. --(GriffinSB) (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't you have anything else to do than to follow me around wikipedia?:D lol

i was just expressing my opinion on that article,on the discussion page. what's the problem?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

how to block?

this ip address

83.226.119.88

keeps spamming the entry 'ruth fowler (writer) with malicious, fictional lies

how can one block? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.203.226 (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My reply is here. SWik78 (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for your encouraging words. Yes, the main reason is because due to real-life obligations, I barely have enough time for the Wikipedia anymore. Originally I intended to retire, but all these recent changes and articles needing updating (Kosovo-related, Serbian parliamentary election, 2008, Montenegrin presidential election, 2008) have kept me from that.

Thanks again and all the best wishes! --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

re.: Serbian propaganda in the Yugoslav wars

Hi, I see you have suggested the Serbian propaganda in the Yugoslav wars article for deletion (again). I agree that it is a very poorly written article which seems to be beyond salvaging. Part of the problem is in fact the very name ("propaganda" is a POV term in itself). I suggest deleting the article and redirecting it to the Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia article. Thoght you should propose this alternative, since it seems a lot of people are opposing the deletion on the grounds that the subject deserves its own article.Osli73 (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My reply is here. SWik78 (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dog Meat Consumption

I noticed that you left a message in my talk page. Thanks for your message. What frustrates me most is this. Most Koreans DO NOT EAT DOG MEAT. You will never find dog meat in a normal korean restaurant. You have to go to a specialty restaurant. Most young men, children and women don't eat dog meat. The minority of avid dog meat fans in Korea are older men from 40 to 70 who believe in the scientifically unproven aphrodisiac value of dog meat.

Then why all the publicity? The majority of Koreans who couldn't give a damn about dog meat is caught between those die-hard dog meat eaters in Korea AND virulently anti-Korean foreigners who would love to portray all Koreans as hungry dog meat eaters. As one of the silent majority, I would like to voice my strong objections to portraying dog meat as a regular part of Korean cuisine. IT IS NOT.

What angers me so much is that in Korea there has always been heated debates between proponents of dog meat and the growing number of dog meat haters. It may be hard to believe for you, but growing up, dog meat was ridiculed. Because the Korean government foolishly decided to pick up a fight internationally, even non-dog meat eating Koreans were forced to defend the minority dog meat eaters. I am sick and tired of defending these idiots.

I will start collecting more data. As a start, I recommend you read the following speech by the president of a Korean animal protection organization.

http://www.friendsofdogs.net/KAPSoppose.html

Aragaya11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aragaya11 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Semi protection of a page

Ok, thank you for brining it to my attention. I will take a look. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 15:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Special Treatment for Atheists

The guidance that was added to the Atheist category was the same guidance used in the Irish Roman Catholics category. If you try adding the Irish Roman Catholics category to someone that is an Irish Roman Catholic, it will likely be removed. If you are against the guidance, then you should also remove it from other religion categories, if you do not wish to do this, then add it back to the Atheist category and remove those who do not fit in the guidance. 75.34.59.92 (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked other Irish religious pages and found that it was only Irish Catholics who had the guidance, therefore making it biased so I removed it. I hope you will back me up on removing it from the Catholic category as you believed it did not belong on the Atheist category. 75.34.59.92 (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your revert to Wikipedia signatures

Hi, just wondering whether i can ask you a question. On the 4th of March at 19:12 you reverted Wikipedia signatures which you can see here: [[8]] Just want to know are you an admin or do you have the rollback tool. If not, then would it not have been easier to just press undo in relation to the above edit. I dont think you would have gone to the trouble of typing all that stuff in the edit summary. You must have the rollback, so how come you dont have it on your page. Just wondering thats all. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My reply is here. SWik78 (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your right, i couldn't agree with you anymore. As it states on the nominating for rollback page 'not an honour or sign of community trust' Happy wikipeding and good luck Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Srbosjek article

I have tried to discuss it with you on two ocassions,but you haven't responded to me. Those external links there are crap.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Those links don't belong on the main page of the article or any encyclopedia.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

you put that WP:RFC. I don't know hot to do that,but i sure want to discuss it. --(GriffinSB) (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Big_Bird/November_2007_-_March_2008&oldid=1105196531"