Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ghirlandajo (talk | contribs) at 14:54, 3 November 2006 (→☆: tnx). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting --~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

RFI

The result of someone going to RFI should not be that they decide to stop editing the article because of disruptive editing. —Centrx→talk • 17:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem there was that this wasn't a regular contributor to the article. I've replied in more detail at the RFI. Durova 00:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

IP blocking

No IPs are not blocked indefinitely unless it is an open proxy, and even that is not a permanent case. Most people have connections such that if they disconnect and reconnect they will be assigned a new IP. Even IPs where this not the case are re-assigned from time to time and would generally never warrant blocking for more than a year. Any time you block an IP indefinitely, it means that many people will not be able to edit and that some other admin is going to have to deal with it and unblock it. —Centrx→talk • 18:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

With problematic schools, I have been blocking them for some long period of time (most recently: until February 2007), but anon. only (and disallowing account creation), with a message like: "Vandalism. If you would like to contribute to this encyclopedia, you may create an account at home and use it at school.". —Centrx→talk • 18:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiding comments

How can I archive some comments on my talk page? Lieutenant Dol Grenn 23:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page. Durova 01:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Help needed for more continued reverts

Durova, I have rewritten what I believe is a very neutral, organized and well researched article on the Midnight Syndicate topic, and just a few hours later it was reverted again by the same previous users that had been blocked before. I have given my reasons and all references on the talk page, while the other users have not provided valid reasons for reverting to an inacurate history and self-promotional version of the article. Plus they keep making personal attacks, and though slight digs now, it may escalate as in the past. I really need another unbiased viewpoint on this. Thank you. Oroboros 1 02:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The best help I can offer is to suggest WP:RFC. I've actually gone the extra mile and opened the request for you, so please summarize your position on the article talk page. Best wishes, Durova 03:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

PAIN

Hello there. You might want to know that I responded to your comment before mine was removed by someone. //Halibutt 22:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it. I wasn't consulted but the removal is appropriate. Durova 23:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet I'd like to hear from you on the question I asked. Also, please be so kind as to respond on my talk page, I can't monitor all user pages. //Halibutt 21:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page with WP:POINT warning. Durova 22:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Durova, but I still did not get a reply. How come M.K. calling me a nationalist is different from me calling him a nationalist? Double standards perhaps? Nyah, I know I didn't deserve fair treatment and perhaps I should simply stand back and be happy I'm spat on. And no, you don't have to reply to this comment, I know perfectly well what to do now. //Halibutt 00:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You did get a reply, which you have acknowledged by blanking both the reply and the accompanying policy warning from your talk page. If, as you claimed, "there's little difference between calling someone a nazi (sic) and a nationalist," and "nationalism is something I hate and something that in my culture is regarded as somewhere between being an idiot and being a dangerous psycho," then perhaps an administrator in your own native language's edition of Misplaced Pages would evaluate your complaint differently. In the English speaking world these terms are neither equivalent nor synonymous. It was not calling the other editor a nationalist that you proposed, but calling him several stronger and unmistakably pejorative terms. Perhaps that, like the blanking you performed within eight minutes of posting here, was something you also forgot. Durova 01:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Bah, now I get it. Thanks. "Nationalist", "person to force wikipedians out", "psychopath" - yes. "Nazi" and so on - no. As to the blanking, I will blank any accusations from my page, including unfounded accusations of WP:POINT. Regardless of what you think of yourself, posting questions at your talk page is not exactly "disrupting wikipedia". Cheers. //Halibutt 06:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What's with the exclamation mark page

I don't consider the subject very controversial, that's just weird blocking editing of it.--Mastne 23:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The admin who performed the block explained it in the edit note. If you want more information, then ask that admin. Durova 23:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Blatant and Overt Electioneering and Partisan POV Pushing

In the John Kerry article re 'botched joke controversy'

• "Adding more to the Remarks Section

• "I believe that more should be added to the recent remarks section of this article. There should be more about the reaction from soldiers and soldiers families. Also, this could hurt many democrats for reelection in the 2006 election. One day, although it might not be, we could look back on this and think that this could have been why the republicans kept Congress. Bcody 22:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC) From said user's page "My Opinions I support President George W. Bush, and believe that the world is a safer place with Saddam out of power and Osama hiding in a cave."" Blatant and Overt Electioneering and Partisan POV Pushing - F.A.A.F.A 02:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you contact this editor and express your concerns directly. Durova 03:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Did I do it right this time?

. You can vote too :) Zarbat 11:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You've certainly raised the question in the proper manner. I really don't know whether you've found the right solution or not. Durova 14:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well all I want is consistency. If they're called "Indigenous Australians" then there should be nothing wrong with calling their culture the "Indigenous Australian culture". If the latter term is out of the place, then I'm guessing the first one is too. Zarbat 07:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not one of the people who professes enough knowledge of the subject to make that determination. You've opened an appropriate discussion so we'll see how it goes. Regards, Durova 13:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Indian Rebellion - Thanks

Tnx for your input - advice taken. It looks as though we may have reached an acceptable compromise (i.e. everyone's unhappy now ;) Tomandlu 14:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

May I quote you on the definition of an acceptable compromise?  ;) Durova 14:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Saint Joan of Arc

Hello ! I guess you'll be busier than ever now that you're (deservedly) an admin. Just a quick note to say that we have a newish editor who changed the first sentence of Joan of Arc to begin Saint Joan of Arc ... . If I remember rightly, you noticed that this seemed to have caused problems (i.e. in the visions section). Anyway, I've put it back the way it was. All the best ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Good call. Cheers, Durova 01:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

☆

Thanks for your kind award. It's all the more meaningful coming from you! --Ghirla 10:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

And long overdue. Wear it well. :) Durova 13:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I just spotted this edit. The fact really happened, but my English is not good enough to rephrase it. Could you help to English this addition? P.S. The picture at the top of this page made me laugh out loud! --Ghirla 13:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've copyedited the statement. Could you find a source for it? I know the tradition was true - that was true in most of Europe until very recently. BTW if you find other statements that are in similar need of copyediting attention, drop me a line. (And thanks for the chuckle). Durova 14:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to source the claim. --Ghirla 14:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

11-M

Hello Durova.

Following your kindly request I have launched a new iniciative to try to arrive to something in the Madrid Bombings article. I hope that everybody will act also constructively. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:11_March_2004_Madrid_train_bombings#Let.27s_use_an_accepted_model --Igor21 13:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable proposal. I hope it works. Paid a visit to that talk page and all I've done is changed a copyrighted image to a link (the talk page doesn't count under fair use parameters). Durova 14:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)