what did I say that was offensive...I know at least 20 of you...I know about agent orange from Rand where I worked....I sat at meetings and saw you destory good scientists...and the fusion program ...I just wrote the truth....I did not go into star wars because classified...by the way did you know wigner...I did and he was a gentleman...it is time for a change ...teller dead...bethe dead.... etc etc...you can not control forever....and the DOD is catching on to you....you can give each other medals but you can not do science...since it requires truth,,,do you practice truth in your actions?
Hello mate - I can't believe I didn't get round to commenting on your RFA until now - I honestly thought I'd put in my two pence worth early on, and didn't even have your individual RFA watch listed! Scrolling through I suddenly realised this was not the case. Not that it matters, as I'm number 45 support with one Oppose so all looks good. Mop wisely my friend !! Pedro | Chat 14:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't say that! I said it was likely to pass, and got 3 opposes for that comment (granted, I jokingly called a guy retarded in the header, but same diff :P). GiggyTalk | Review21:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point (I think) was that both ABF and AAGF are essays (ironic, coming from me, I think...), and shouldn't be enforced or taken seriously. Or something like that...Confused yet? :P GiggyTalk | Review21:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well give me a prod when it comes...either by email or here. Unless you have any objections, I plan to give you a co-nom/nom. And two months isn't that short, I've seen many users improve a lot in that amount of time, and consequently, get the mop. --Dark Fallstalk11:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I would be so appreciative of a nom (or co-nom - one or two people have already said they'd like to nom, so I'm not really sure what's going on). Thanks -- Anonymous DissidentTalk12:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you're still awake? It's nearly eleven... and I drank about 5 cups of coffee to keep me awake. Back to business, just tell me when, and I'll make the nom. (yawn...)--Dark Fallstalk12:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...I'm nocturnal. I was thinking early (like the first 10 days) of September. Oh, and by the way, have fun with your new tools! ;) (oh wait - you havent got them yet, but i see that they should be coming soon) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk22:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
August 4 DYK
On 4 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Samuel Gillott, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I'm being told to grow up...? Hey, if you go up and promote your sexuality on Wikipedia... Let's just say that things won't go too well. --Dark Fallstalk01:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 5 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Samuel Gillott, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I was merely worried about employees casually being able to view the article and see what had been written. Assuming the article stays deleted, I am satisfied and thankful. Smoove K02:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning or evening (depending on your location --DarkFallstalk. I just wanted to take a moment and thank you for your comments on my Rfa application. I believe I now hold the record for the quickest closure! However, that does not negate the input and insight gained. Once again, thank you and have great day. Shoessss | Chat 12:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NP :) It's really weird how I have had RFA on my watch for a while now, and yet I managed to have missed your RFA completely, and only now when you've been promoted I've noticed that you even had an RFA. Meh, ;) –sebi11:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woohoo! My first and best sockpuppet has made it in the end :) Don't block Jimbo, don't delete the Main Page, don't protect the wrong version. Ask me if you need a hand with anything. Good luck mate :) ~ Riana ⁂12:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:1124693.jpg
Here's a dark water fall for you! Dark waterfalls somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing!--HirohisatTalk00:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Crap. Pretty belated congrats, but at least I beat Giggy on the latest congrats message ever. But seriously, congrats, and get your butt back to work! :) Jmlk1706:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing the userboxes on my page. I had a lot of problems trying to figure it out.
Now I see how that should be done now. Next time I know. Thanks again. Cheers mate:) KingLopezContribs10:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Set the parametres, say whether it's the talk page or the user page (talk=yes vs. that field empty), and you've claimed a page for you country!"
Let the land-grab begin!
I see a prosperous future in which the people of my nation and your nation can lead a pointless war against a non-existent enemy. I'm thinking the Super Secret Shadow-Admin Cabal, which controlls every edit. Secretly! With... magnets! Together we will rule this pathetic encyclopedia! Come back Wiki! I didn't mean what I said!
I saw that my first page got deleted and wanted you to confirm what I realized may be the problem.
The page was Redemption Plan (a band similar to Casting Crowns). Besides the fact that I still should have gotten the rest of the details of their significance, it occurred to me that Wikipedia has a general measurment for this which I read this morning. Would you agree that I'm on the right track and undermeasured the, or was there another reason that you saw.
I am looking forward to participating more often and would like the nudge that you can provide that will allow me to avoid eating up time with an entry that is going to be so easily thrown away.
The problem with the article is that it lacks an assertion of notability, with the band not doing much that is significant within its field. The band differs from Casting Crowns, as Redemption Plan seems to be a local Christian band, while Casting Crowns were a Grammy-awarded band. My advice is to take a small look at the guideline, check whether it is notable within it, then create the article. If you are unsure about the notability of the article, create the article in a subpage (User:Chipmccoy/Redemption Plan etc), notify me and I'll take a look. Also cite third party sources, so the article is verifiable. Cheers. --DarkFallstalk06:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is good information. Thank you for the feedback. Cheers.
On 7 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Hyde, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Does that mean I'm officially an Aussie now, dear DarkFalls? Well, just between you and me, I must confess that, to my shame, I had quite a crush on Crocodile Dundee as a little girl... so this is like coming home, in a very real sense! Now if you allow me, I have to go and buy myself a Wallabies' shirt to wear while I listen to Men at Work's Down Under! :) Have a beautiful day! Love, Phaedrielthe Aussie - 04:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've spoken with the Queen. She's royally kicking you out of the Commonwealth. Her Majesty cares not for crocodiles any longer. My apologies. You can always move to Canada, though. ;) user:j07:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it appears that you have blocked my IP address from editing items in Wikipedia. I had added an external link to the Brooklyn Bridge page on wiki as I thought that people would find it interesting to also look at a photo gallery with images of Brooklyn Bridge. My link was then deleted several times by someone going by the username of "Targeman". I had sent him 2 emails to ask him for an explanation since it seems to be common practice on Wikipedia to have external links to picture galleries. (On the very same page is one to "Brooklyn Bridge Photo Gallery- Photography by Charles Peifer ". Also if you look how often some other image galleries appear on Wikipedia (e.g. http://www.domaintools.com/enwikipedia/terragalleria.com ) you maybe see my point. The repeated removal of my link is thus inconsistent with what appears to be common practice on Wikipedia. If the rules state that there should be no external links then that's fine, but why do you apply them to some people and to others not? Although Targeman did not seem too busy to delete my links and have my IP blocked, it seemed to be too much to ask for an explanation as I never received any reply to my emails to him. This type of arrogant and self-righteous behaviour from a so-called editor does not appear very commendable to the Wikipedia project.
Signature
I figured out how to make a signature over 255 characters! It’s so simple. First you created a sub-page that contains the over 255 characters signature. Let’s call it User:DarkFalls/test. Then you go to your preferences and enter in {{user:DarkFalls/test}} as your signature. When you sign your name, it will produce the over 255 characters signature! Amazing huh?
On second thought, I think that transcluding signatures as if they were templates is not allowed, and substing just doesn't bring any improvement to the long signature problem.--Húsönd17:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DarkFalls. I am here to inform you that your userpage or talk page has been conquered by the Australian Cabal. Please don’t panic; there is nothing you can do about it. You are hereby invited to join the Cabal, and help conquer other pages for our cause. See User:Giggy/Australian Cabal for more information. Thank you, have a nice day, and welcome to Australia. GiggyTalk22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1.5 weeks after my previous one, obviously the best way to pass! Probably some time in October - but I won't be actively seeking a nom, just let it come to me (Playin' it cool). GiggyTalk07:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A valid point has been raised here and stories like this should remind folks that Wikipedia isn't some egalitarian, neutral utopia. Wikipedians are a very particular community/audience, and they are a subset of internet users (another particular community/audience). Everybody doesn't (get to) play. http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/wikigroaning.php
Non Australian? Yeah..well..I started the cabal, so shut it! It's just the accents that sometimes confuse me, even though I've been here for 12.5/15.5 years. GiggyTalk09:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again!
Wow thank you so much for paying attention to my report. That ip user kept vandalizing my talk page over and over, undoing my reverts. Personally attacking me. attacking my user page, etc. Then he started in on the Twinkle page. Thanks again! He was especially bad..lol ✬Dillard421✬(talk • contribs)09:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XV - August 2007
The August 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
You can see that my point is also supported by Vinay Jha. I only oppose to mention of only western linguistic dating which is opposed by traditional indian views. Secondly, when linguistic dating is based on a pure theory then how can Dab suppress traditional views & it's astroarcheology based dating. Dab is known for his suppressive behaviour , so it would be better if he respond in a more democratic & proper way. Trying to delete Indian view on Indian subject is totally supremist behaviour. I expect neutral behaviour from Dab. WIN11:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Membership in the German and World Scouts Movement
I am still member of the DPSG in Germany - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DPSG and insofar of the world movewent of scoutism (WOSM) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOSM. So I may wear the three signs of DPSG, WOSM and as an Knight of Saint George - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/DPSG . I am proud abouth this and have the right to demonstrate these emblems by the end of my life. (WOSM insignia: *This image is only being used in Wikipedia articles for informational and educational purposes. - tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WOSMflagpurple.png. May the Lord bless you and Gut Pfad! --Beartd_άρχης21:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The userspace is not in an article. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria limits use of such fair use images to the mainspace. "Restrictions on location. Non-free content is used only in the article namespace; it is never used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages." Placing fair use images on userspace violates Wikipedia's fair use policy. --DarkFallstalk02:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Rgveda Dating Controversy
You did well to warn WIN, but forgot to send the same to DAB, who has used more abuses for others than any other editor. See Talk:Utpala where he abused me without any provocation. See Talk:Rgveda (esp. Give a balanced account of Rgvedic dating), where instead of answering any of the points raised by me about his edits, he labelled fictious charges against me. Is Wikipedia his personal property ? Differences must happen in democracies, but DAB does not tolerate dissension and starts abusing even his elders. My students are heads of departments but I can remain in Wiki only if I try to get accustomed to abuses. You should be impartial ; if you warned WIN, you should warn DAB too. Administrators are not emperors. --Vinay Jha21:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree there is a "controversy" as soon as VJ has cited a single scholarly source for his insane claims. So far, he restricts himself to confused ramblings along the lines that the presence of Greeks in Crete in 1450 BC proves that the Rigveda was composed in the Indus Valley before 2000 BC. I ask you. dab(𒁳)10:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To DarkFalls: Yoy say "From the information gathered, I presume these additions are OR?", which is totally wrong. I was then new to Wiki and my plan was to write the matter first and add sources later, but I was stopped midway. As for OR, the present article Surya Siddhanta contains OR as well as false statements which I can prove if DAB wants arbitration (cf. "Clarification by User:Vinay Jha" in Talk:Hinduism for proofs). I did not pursue the issue and left that article because I found Wikipedians are not interested Surya Siddhanta and therefore I avoided wastage of time over arbitration. My only complain to you was that DAB was abusing me, and here on your talk page too he is calling me "insane" and you are endorsing him ! You are being misled by DAB who is breaking WP:CIVIL. --Vinay Jha07:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. I have not endorsed any views that classified you as "insane". I merely said that it was "understandable" for him to revert your changes. As for the OR, any addition without sources may be considered original research. --DarkFallstalk07:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DAB is spreading false rumours about me that I am adding unsourced statements to Wiki(see above). My well sourced contribution to Rgveda (2 August ,2007) was deleted but unsourced and false etymology of Rgveda was not corrected in spite of protests. I discussed it on Talk:Rgveda under 'Wrong Etymology of 'Rgveda' ' on Aug-3, DAB refused to mend it (Aug-7); I again asked (Aug-10); lastly I used more explicit words pointing at his errors at 16:35, 10 August 2007, and just 4 minutes after he corrected the error. It proves that DAB has no knowledge of fundamentals of Sanskrit grammar, yet did not rectify his error till I insisted again and again ? But this resulted in his ill-will towards me and he called me silly and erratic just two hours later (on Talk:Utpala on 10 August 2007, 15:41 UTC ) without any cause of provocation. It is against Wiki policy of WP:CIVIL. On Abecedares talk page DAB says about me "In terms of general education, he plainly isn't: his opinions are rife with naive non-sequiturs"; it is again a personal attach and insult. In your page above he called me insane and crank, because I compelled him to correct his grammatical errors in the opening lines of Rgveda. He is falsely charging me of WP:OR , but is himself keeping some material in Surya Siddhanta which are WP:OR, in spite of my repeated protests. He deleted my active talk on Rgveda aimed at methods for imroving this article which is against Wiki rules. Another user IAF deleted a sentence of DAB's talk just for testing the reaction, and was banned for 96 hours just 7 minutes later ! But DAB deletes my talks, deletes my well sourced edits, abuses me everywhere, and nobody can check him ! DAB says that I am putting unsourced statements on talk page and that is why he deletes them. Does he put sourced statements on talk pages ? I do not want you to get involved, I am just informing you. I have cited only a few instances. He has abused me so many times that a good lebel case can be filed in a court of law. But I will not do that. I am just enjoying the hospitality of Wikipedians, being a new user. DAB treats me like a servant, because he does not want a knowledgeable person who can check his errors, as I did (Rgveda etymology). --Vinay Jha Vinay Jha 21:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the latest DYK update
2 hours behind and I checked on all the admins who put their names down to see if anyone was currently active so I could message them...none were! Thanks for taking care of that. --BrokenSphereMsg me07:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if you could attend the matter regarding this user promptly and then subsequently remove the protection. Regards, --Kudret abi09:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you have also protected the page when it was at the Wiikipedian version, which is wrong: he arbitrarity renamed a parameter out of the blue, which will cause hundreds of articles using this parameter to be displayed incorrectly. Please respect the efforts of myself and all of my fellow editors who have worked hard to improve this template and revert this article to the correct pre-Wiikipedian version and then please take care of this Wiikipedian before he does any more harm. --Kudret abi10:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template has been altered so that both sagawards and screenactorguildsawards can be used. It's also been unprotected. As for Wiikipedian, an ANI post is in progress... --DarkFallstalk10:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the usual is. I have a copy made to my computer. Some special bits there, and won't be losing anything. Thanks. GH12:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DarkFalls, I see that you deleted St. Scholastica's Academy (Talisay City, Cebu - Philippines) with the comment Speedy deleted per (CSD a1), was a very short article providing little or no context. via tw. I do not believe that A1 was ever intended to allow deletions except where the article makes it impossible or nearly impossible to understand what the subject of the article is. There was a lot of discussion of this at the time we added A7 to the list, and the consensus on the meaning of A1 was (and I believe still is) clear. That is why A1 states "Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub." I cannot find the article in the Google cache so I cannot see the text, but the name alone is nearly sufficient to determine the context. Further, there is almost universal agreement that even a very stubby article on a high school should not be speedied under A7, either. In fact, almost all articles on high schools survive AfD. I would ask that you reinstate the article and list it at AfD if you believe it should be deleted. If you believe my understanding of the use of A1 is incorrect, however, I ask that you copy the text of the deleted article to my user space so that I can undertake a community review of your action at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you. -- DS1953talk14:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article consists of a single infobox, with no content except for three headings and a few external links. The infobox in itself is incomplete, and I do not think it adds much context to the article. As it has basically no content, I am highly doubtful if it'll qualify for a stub. Per your request, the content of the deleted article is in User:DS1953/St. Scholastica's Academy. Cheers. --DarkFallstalk23:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You declined my request for protecting this page. The case is that this user who changes his IP every day is back. He didn't have any edits since the un-protection, because he didn't know he can edit. Now, as the oage is unprotected, he will visit the page every day and revert it. I know why I'm telling you that, please protect the page. --Shahid • Talk2me17:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:dyk
No worries. Btw, I've got the user and article talk pages handled, so dont worry there. Hey - I've seen you have started getting involved at DYK - why not put your name down? We always need more admins for DYK backlog, so your help is appreciated. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk01:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect should be deleted, not unlinked, and the unlinking probably prevents the page from showing up as a broken redirect. Kusma (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Congratulations on your adminship. I don't know if you saw it, but your mediation request failed. Not very surprising, since most editors involved are probably enjoying themselves somewhere at the Adriatic coast, either east (Croatians) or west (Italians).
User:Johnbod indicated a very useful way of sorting out the historical names of artists from the Dalmatian coast. See here, here and here. I know the current disputes don't involve artists, but they're bound to come up sooner or later, so I just wanted to let you know that the Getty list can be used to resolve them. --Zmaj09:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the noitces. I'm on a really slow PC temporarily and was waiting for the usual one to come back...but thanks for stepping in, and with the Sheik article as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you had written a page or stub for some of the characters in the Shadow Skill anime page and that they had been deleted. Any idea why? I was thinking of writing some quick bios of the characters either on the page or as a stub, but I don't wanna get smacked. Any thoughts? --Kraftlos21:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you got me confused with someone else... I don't know what Shadow Skill is, let alone create a stub about it. And if you wish to write an article about a character in an anime, please be aware of WP:FICTION, and make sure a list of characters in the anime wouldn't be more suited, as opposed to an article about one... --DarkFallstalk08:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Garrr... sorry. When I went to edit, your name came up in relation to the article being deleted, so I assumed that you were the one who wrote it. Now that I realise it, a list of characters would be more appropriate, it looks like the person who wrote the article decided for some reason to link every single name in the article. --Kraftlos22:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editing-related issues on Khmer Rouge-related pages
Hi DarkFalls,
Below is the thread of my communications with Unblock (Admin Yamla). It would be great if you could address these since Yamla referred to you as editing authority in this case.
Yamla also has my email address which is probably a better way to communicate, if you prefer that.
Thanks,
Stan
'Original Message' to Unblock and Your talkpage
Dear Wikipedia,
I was blocked from editing at the following IP address 202.47.102.180 by Administrator DarkFalls.
I find this decision hardly justifiable content-wise. I will arrange the following in a bulletpoint format, as this method seems to be most conducive to time-saving on our both parts --
1. You refer to my adding the following blog http://ecccreparations.blogspot.com/ to multiple sections relating to the history of the Khmer Rouge and Camnbodia and its individual members as "spamming" (Darkfalls refers to "continuing to add spam links" as the main reason for blocking). To address this I am turning to Wikipedia's Guidelines for External Links (hereinafter "Guidelines") which contains a linking test. This test is 3-pronged: 1) accessible to the reader, 2) proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc), 3) functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link. I believe the material I attempted to add satisfies all the above criteria.
2. I do appreciate, as a matter of policy, the Guidelines' position on "promoting a website or a product", however, in this case this statement lacks foundation, as the blog in question, clearly, was not created to generate a large amount of traffic -- due to the nature of the material it deals with -- to achieve a commercial objective of one type or another. This is unless you are referring to GoogleAds that do appear on the blog and which are not integral to the blog, nor are potential readers under any obligation to avail themselves of their presence. The blog was created as -- to the best of my knowledge -- the biggest repository of content (analyses, articles, press releases, etc) relating to the possibility of the ECCC (the Khmer Rouge Tribunal)to generate reparations for the victims of the KR. "Promoting a website" is a matter of interpretation here, as large volumes of intellectual work are a give-and-take. I invest time and effort in collecting topic-related material and offer my own insights on the legal and extra-legal contexts surrounding the issue, and I do try to get this content out to the general public for the following reasons: a. free-of-charge legal and otherwise awareness-building and education on the matter of ECCC reparations, b. soliciting responses to this issue from the Khmer community in Cambodia and Khmer emigre community in the rest of the world, as reparations is a contentious issue to which the only answer at this point that matters is that generated by the court of public opinion. I, until now, was of the opinion that being "a people's encyclopedia" these were the objectives of Wikipedia. In addition, as the ECCC is getting closer to its trial stage, the issue I am treating on this blog is that of currency and adds an edge to Wikipedia which traditional encyclopedias lack. I am sure there is a way to argue that this falls under "promotion" in one way or another, however, this is not any type of promotion in a commercial sense of the word. Rather, it is a case of promotion of high quality intellectual content, which, in my opinion, benefits Wikipedia readers.
3. This link was also added under "External Links" in the Wikipedia articles on Noun Chea, Khieu Samphan, Kang Kech Ieu (Duch) and Ieng Sary, all of whom are most likely defendants of the ECCC and, therefore, sources of reparations for their victims, provided, of course, they are found guilty. I attempted to add this link to the articles on the Khmer Rouge, Democratic Kampuchea and Cambodia for the same reasons. If this content is unhelpful or otherwise unsatisfactory to the reader, why not let the reader decide whether this link belongs under "External Links" of a particular Wikipedia page?
I would appreciate, if you could review your decision to block this content (not merely the 24-hour block from further editing) based on the above justification.
Sincerely,
P.S. On a closer examination of Wikipedia's Khmer Rouge page I have found out that there is a reference to at least one other published law review article (Chigas, George (2000). "Building a Case Against the Khmer Rouge: Evidence from the Tuol Sleng and Santebal Archives". Harvard Asia Quarterly 4 (1) 44-49)which your administrators have chosen to keep under "References" since at least 2005, while having deleted the published law review article on as relevant a content which I had tried to add to the page under "External Links".
Evidently, no adverse action has ever been taken agaist other websites and blogs which carry various types of ads, such as those under the following entries: "Group for the Study of the Theories of Pol Pot", "Party of Democratic Kampuchea", "HistoryNet: Losing Ground to the Khmer Rouge", among others. The above websites are also invitations to join topical discussion groups, however, for one reason or another, they were not labeled as "promotion".
Last but far not least, links added to this page with a content which bear no relevance to the topic it covers. A good example of this would be one of the oldest links on the page -- "Sok Sisovan Meaning of Yuon", the content of which has nothing to do with the Khmer Rouge, but instead contains the author's treatment of the etimological background of the Khmer pejorative for Vietnamese, "Youn".
Would it be fair to say that your administrators' decision to block my content was selective and had a little to do with shooting off the hip?
I posted the above message on this board and sent it out via email about a week ago to which, as of today, none of your administrators have replied in any way. If the Wikipedia Guidelines provide for a possibility of appeal, wouldn't it also be a part of concept of appeal that the remedy it creates be effective? Thank you.
Second Message
Dear Wikipedia,
I was blocked from editing at the following IP address 202.47.102.180 by Administrator DarkFalls. This is a PS to my earlier message --
P.S. On a closer examination of Wikipedia's Khmer Rouge page I have found out that there is a reference to at least one other published law review article (Chigas, George (2000). "Building a Case Against the Khmer Rouge: Evidence from the Tuol Sleng and Santebal Archives". Harvard Asia Quarterly 4 (1) 44-49)which your administrators have chosen to keep under "References" since at least 2005, while having deleted the published law review article on as relevant a content which I had tried to add to the page under "External Links".
Evidently, no adverse action has ever been taken agaist other websites and blogs which carry various types of ads, such as those under the following entries: "Group for the Study of the Theories of Pol Pot", "Party of Democratic Kampuchea", "HistoryNet: Losing Ground to the Khmer Rouge", among others. The above websites are also invitations to join topical discussion groups, however, for one reason or another, they were not labeled as "promotion".
Last but far not least, links added to this page with a content which bear no relevance to the topic it covers. A good example of this would be one of the oldest links on the page -- "Sok Sisovan Meaning of Yuon", the content of which has nothing to do with the Khmer Rouge, but instead contains the author's treatment of the etimological background of the Khmer pejorative for Vietnamese, "Youn".
Would it be fair to say that your administrators' decision to block my content was selective and had a little to do with shooting off the hip?
Response from Unblock
Your adding that link is inappropriate. Blogs are specifically listed as item
11 on the links to normally avoid (WP:EL). That it has google ads makes it
a commercial site. You added the link to a large number of articles in a
very short time, setting off our spam radar (WP:SPAM, How not to be a
spammer, #5). This seems to be your own site (WP:SPAM, How not to be a
spammer, #1, WP:COI). And you were warned repeatedly about your actions and
rather than discussing your links (WP:SPAM, How not to be a spammer, #6), you
simply continued your actions.
Your block was entirely appropriate.
My Response to "Response from Unblock"
Art. 11 of the Guidelines for External Links states the following -- "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority". I don't remember Wikipedia running a test of "recongnized authority" and requesting my credentials before blocking the links in question, at least not any that I was informed of. If GoogleAds makes for a commercial site, why did your administrators not take the same action against other sites added as external links and references to multiple other articles, including the ones I specifically mentioned in my previous letter? I was warned repeatedly within the course of 24 hours and through a message board built into Wikipedia, which is different than my email which I check periodically. Had the Wikipedia administrators handled this matter with more consideration for contributors' convenience, I would have been more than happy to discuss matters of concern raised by them in a more amicable format than appeal correspondence. Considering the fact that Wikipedia happens to be a user-written encyclopedia, I am convinced most contributors believe that it would benefit from making contributor-friendly rules, rather than exercising police-state like authority.
The arguments above, once again, prove that the decision to block in question was hasty and lacking firm foundation. If you are referring to this procedure as 'appeal', it would certainly benefit from addressing the issues raised by appellant in the appeal submission.
Second Message from Unblock
You are no longer blocked; your block expired about six days ago. If you wish
to discuss your block, please take it up with the blocking admin. You can do
so here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DarkFalls
While I understand your frustration, I will note that unblock-en-l is not the
right venue for this. We deal with unblock considerations and you are not
blocked. Additionally, it would have been impossible to contact you by email
as you were not signed in when you made your edits. As a general rule,
though, we use Wikipedia user discussion pages to engage in discussion with
Wikipedia users. Wikipedia indicates when you have a new message waiting.
My Latest Message
Thanks, Yamla. I will contact Dark Falls. I apologize for having thrown the whole bulk of editing-related issues at you including those that should have been channelled to a different authority.
The problem I have regarding such additions of the external link to the articles was not the content of the information in question, but the medium in which the information is published. Blogs, I am sure you will agree, sometimes contain information that has problems in verification and contain text which portrays the author's point of view of the information, as opposed to a global view of the issue. They also may contain a slightly more radical and wayward view of the issue than say, one published by a recognized expert ("someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by the public or their peers.") in a newspaper, such as the New York Times. Please take a look at Wikipedia's Reliable sources content guideline. On the guideline, it specifically states the meaning of a "reliable source", and therefore, a source which will be allowable on Wikipedia. "The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." Also take note of "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." And as for another concern of other blogs that have made its way to the "external links" of articles, they were either covered in WP:SELFPUB, or were simply overlooked in the difficulties of tending to 1.95 million articles... As Yamla said, please be aware of the policies on verifiability of the sources, and the implications of Conflict of Interest. Cheers. --DarkFallstalk08:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, for the most part, anyway. There's no doubt that blogs do come in all shapes and sizes which requires a lot of vetting on the part of Wikipedia, which is honestly what I thought was being done to insure quality and avoid discriminating against blogs as a group merely on the basis of their registration accessibility. This, of course, remains within Wikipedia's purview whether to accept or reject particular references to external links.
On the material "thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community" I added a link to another blog (http://cambodianlawreview.blogspot.com/2007/07/should-rudolf-hss-of-cambodia-be.html) which contains an article published in a law review journal about two years ago and the web publication of which I had prior obtained permission of the journal. This article is likely to remain the most thorough legal analysis of the person (Duch) about whose detention status it was written. Wikipedia torpedoed this link too. I don't believe there is a Khmer Rouge/Cambodia scholar out there who would consider the content of the above-mentioned blog 'wayward'.
I am willing to participate in further discussions of the content of the both blogs, if Wikipedia is in principle interested in these additions. If otherwise, I am less than willing to further the debate on the variety of legal interpretations of editing and external links guidelines.
I am doubtful if you cite a published source, but give an exact copy online, it'll prove to be a problem. If the link is removed after doing that, give me a message and I'll try and fix it. --DarkFallstalk09:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question was published in the Mediterranian Journal of Human Rights, Volume 9 November 2, 2005 pp. 235-276 and re-published at Cambodian Law Review on the web (the journal's policy permits web re-publication as long as the journal's hardcopy- or e-layout is not used, which takes care of potential copyright issues associated with web-publication).
I used the template you had put together -- with minor alterations -- to create a footnote in the article on Kang Kech Iev (Duch) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khang_Khek_Ieu#Trial)attached to Section "Trial" and appearing as follows -- Starygin, Stan (July 11, 2007). "Should the Rudolf Höss of Cambodia be Entitled to the Minimum Procedural Guarantees?" (in English). Mediterranian Journal of Human Rights/Cambodian Law Review 9: 235-276. Retrieved on 2007-08-17. Please, let me know if that's an acceptable format of editing for this material. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.47.102.180 (talk) 07:59:24, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
This link was deleted again from the Wikipedia page I had added it to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.47.102.180 (talk) 12:59, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
I am one of the contributors to the article Khang Khek Ieu. I recently removed the link in question. There were two reasons for my removing the link: (a) The link was listed as a reference to charges being brought against the subject, and (b) The link was to a blog whose provenance I could not judge. After reading the discussion here so far, I think 'b' has been address. But, 'a' is still a problem. Charges being brought against the subject was widely covered by publications that fall under Wikipedia's reliable sources list. As a compromise, I have moved the link to the journal article to the External Links section. -- Thaths02:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Charges being brought against the subject was widely covered by publications that fall under Wikipedia's reliable sources list". I find myself a little at a loss as to the meaning of this sentence. Any additional insights will doubtless help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.47.102.180 (talk) 05:55, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources say: "the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." I think the "Mediterranean Journal of Human Rights"[4][5] published by the University of Malta will fall into either "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses" or "books published by respected publishing houses". The book is also cited in many respectable university, human rights and even government websites, such as the Georgetown Law Library[6], Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs [7], and the Portuguese Government[8]..., so I fail to see why it could be considered unreliable. --DarkFallstalk06:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in my previous comment to this thread, the Cambodian Law Review blog / journal link is not really a source for the subject being formally charged by the UN-backed tribunal last month. It is, however, a valid source about the larger charges against the subject. This is why I removed it as a reference and placed it as an external link. -- Thaths16:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be this link where it may, to be correct in technical terms Duch was preliminarily charged by the ECCC late last month which in terms of the civil law means that this charge is subject to review and adjustment as might be deemed necessary by the Co-Investigating Judges and provided they secure consent of the Co-Prosecutors. These charges have yet to be brought before a panel of trial judges (we are expecting for this to happen at some point towards the end of year) who will ultimately have to answer the question of whether the prima facie standard of substantiation of the charge(s)has been met. Charges will have to be amended and resubmitted if they fail in the first round. This is a system that is very different from the common law, from which, I surmise, all of us writing here come from. Now, the charge against Duch as it stands now is crimes against humanity which is impossible to compare with a charge with crimes against humanity which had been issued against Duch a few years ago (current one -- issued under the same name has been fairly expounded, whereas the previous one was written on a 3/4 of a page including the letterhead). I suppose the point of hair-splitting here is whether Duch's current preliminary charge of crimes against humanity is the same charge in substance as the one I discuss in my article (ECCC took cue from Military Tribunal of Phnom Penh to ensure some sort of continuity) since the article had come out prior to the inception of the ECCC and the charge I discuss harks back to the current one's namesake issued by the Military Tribunal of Phnom Penh. It's a tight rope. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.47.102.180 (talk) 02:22, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
Do us a favour?
Hey DarkFalls,
could you do me a favour? Because I have recently re-organised my archives by month rather than number of posts, it has become necessary to CSD my old, numbered archives. No attention to the CSDed pages has come, and I'd be hugely appreciative if you could delete User talk:Anonymous Dissident/Archive <1 to 17>. Thanks in advance. Best, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk09:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dissent with your one-word close of "allegations of state terrorism by Russia" and have requested deletion review on the above. >Radiant<12:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you had a problem knowing when someone was up for RFA so I thought this might be helpful to you. It's a tool that updates all RFA's in progress and gives the current consensus.
Would you consider expiring the sprot sooner? In a few days perhaps? These most recent incidents seemed manageable using more ordinary vandal warning/blocking approaches. Check Talk:Barack Obama#Protection for discussion among the article's editors and regular watchers, plus some relevant history. Thanks. --HailFire16:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Side dish? You didn't actually believe that you will be another dish? Oh no... you will be on the pizza, baked and ready to be cut:) --DarkFallstalk09:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 17 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur McIlveen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I wanted to ask why it was necessary to delete the article about EvilLyrics. You saying that it had no notability, i would like to know who decides what is notable and what not. I admit that I'm the author of EvilLyrics but i didn't create the article, it was created and edited by lots of its users who felt it is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. I believe thay spent a quite a lot of time editing and adding the content to the article.
I don't quite understand who and how sets the line between whats notable and what's not, if the similar articles about related software like Winamp or Foobar_2000 or Albumplayer or any other Evillyrics-supported player can stay in Wikipedia.
EvilLyrics is here for almost 5 years, has over 1 million downloads and I think it is notable.
The IP 202.95.200.12 was recently listed on WP:AIV. It was removed by an admins saying that he blocked him, but he didn't really do so. You mentioned a comment saying that it was the same admin that unblocked him. I'm a bit confused here in what went on, so if you wouldn't mind explaining what you know of the whole thing, that'd be great, thanks. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs06:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was blocked by admin, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, who identified the edits as vandalism. He then changed his mind and unblocked, stating that he was dubious that those edits were actually vandalism. The admin who said that the user was blocked, Academic Challenger was not the blocking admin. I then said that the user was unblocked. Normally a bot will remove the messages... but it seems to have crashed. --DarkFallstalk06:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Americans... <shakes head in disbelief> :) "Things" are pretty good, especially after that cracker of a barbie yesterday when I nearly caught on fire...fair dinkum mate. --DarkFallstalk07:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I was watching Die Hard again. Well anyway, I was preparing the barbie for what seems to be a cracker of a da' but "slipped" and accidentally lit meself on fire. Well, we were kinda doing some funny stuff with the oil...(What happens when you put oil straight onto a fire? [Might I add needlessly that it was more of a bonfire BBQ...]) --DarkFallstalk09:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course. I got burnt so much that I had to go to a hospital to get my arms amputated. It looks all black...:) I love this. (In truth, i got a bit of peeled skin but...) --DarkFallstalk09:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky it wasn't enough to impair you editing for a couple of days Now I have to tell all those people to call off that big party we were going to have. Grrrr.... :) Uhhh, you can ignore that very tiny, inconspicuous piece of text preceding this one... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk10:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi DarkFalls, could you have a second look at [9] please? what would you say if someone from en.wikipedia copies your talk page together with a lot of pages where you left comments to the german wikipedia (cf. [10]), and changes tiny bits of comments so that it sounds as if you and others were writing odd stuff? these pages show up on search engines and there were already conflicts because 2 readers claimed that what they found there was 'true'. perhaps also check the deleted contributions of this user here. some german admins got "their pages" deleted some time ago, as far as i know. thanks - 217.237.151.11611:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really have much of a choice when delinking the article. Twinkle basically does it for me... Sorry, I'll do manual deletion next time. --DarkFallstalk00:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Istria and Dalmatia
Hi. So, the mediation request is failed, aandbut the problem is still alive. It regard all the article about Istria and Dalmatia (lands formemly disputed by Italy and Yugoslavia).
Well... there is not a correct or a wrong party. There are only the single edits, and in the single edits proper sources shall be presented. Some user here, doesn't do this. Some user changes the sense of many articles without providing sources, or deleting existing ones, or changing their meaning. Now the limit has been reached. If you want, I will stop with edits for a while, I can restart when you will tell me when. It is ok, for me if all my edits will be put under control, to see if I impose my POV and to verify if I provide sources, and so on. So each one will be able to see if I impose nationalistic POV or not. It's ok for me if some moderators will be involved in this question: somebody is breaking the rules, and my idea is that is necessary to contact some moderators. You are a third part and you can decide. You will be trusted. Tell me what to do. Tx.--Giovanni Giove21:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well this matter will probably be going to arbitration if not stopped quickly... Just remind the other editors of WP:SYNTH and WP:RS, and refrain from adding potentially controversial information. Try and resolve the dispute without resorting to edit warring, and take note of the dispute resolution process. Thanks. --DarkFallstalk04:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will do this. You can see I did no more edits, for now. But, IMHO, somebody goes on in breaking the rules, in fact it is against the rules to delete unconfortable sources or to impose POVs without to provide references. If all this is done performing edit wars, what shall I do?. I think this is a subject for a moderator. Of course I can show the single cases ... I think that to resolve this problem, is a prerequisite to resolve the disputes. Please, tell me what I shall do, tx.--Giovanni Giove10:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good way to do it. Concentrate on resolving one article at a time on the talk page, and it'll make it much easier to resolve the whole dispute. If you are uncomfortable because someone else is edit warring, go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and give the noticeboard evidence or diffs. --DarkFallstalk10:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. For now I will with some edits on the Republic of Ragusa I will (1) reintoduce the historical names in Italian (leaving even teh croatian ones) (2) I will correct some info about the languages that is deprived of fundaments. That's to begin. Have a look if you can. Tx.--Giovanni Giove10:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As u can see all my edits were reverted, even before I had the time to write all my reasons (about the language section in Ragusa). You can also see that another user reverted the NPOV and "controversial" tags I added in Zara and Republic of Ragusa and Siege of Zara, without to do further edits. I would like to report the accidents, but I would like to read your opinion, before. Again thank you--Giovanni Giove11:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dark Falls, I removed the NPOV tags 1) because they were added without discussion or even explanation, and 2) because it would take more than a couple of disputed city-names to make an entire article, that many people worked hard on, NPOV. I'm not necessarily against Giove placing these tags, but I think that both I and the other constructive editors deserve a better explanation than "+ controversial tag (reason self-evident)".
Also I would like to add that there was no dispute between Yugoslavia and non-fascist Italy concerning Dalmatia (the beginning of the section) The only Italian government disputing Yugoslavia's right on Dalmatia was Mussolini's, but then he thought Greece was rightfully Italian as well... DIREKTOR15:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weeks of edit wars ARE a self evident reason, and you KNOW this. If the article is bloked on the version that you like, this does not mean is neutral, and you KNOW this.. Anyway, I don't think is useful to try to reason with you. That why I want to involve a moderator
Weeks of edit wars? Not lately! You obviously want to START ANOTHER ONE. Fine! place the tags. I only fear that this may be the start of another edit war INCITED BY YOU. I also know that, as usual, you will not discuss before changing (probably because of your mediocre knowledge of the language this Wikipedia is written in, and your subsequent corrections of your mistakes will not hide this fact that displays itself in your edits all the time). DIREKTOR16:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fremont Water Park
Why did you Delete Fremont Water Park? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.116.241.68 (talk) 03:56:39, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
Interesting choice! The zebra-striped one is much better in my opinion ;) I'd tone it down before someone gets antsy about it, though... not everyone has a sense of humour :( ~ Riana ⁂11:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can't tell if there will be edit wars until the page is locked. As to consensus, I doubt it given the issue is so black & white. I suppose it might require mediation. John Smith's14:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinitely blocked
You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia for vandalism. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, repeated and blatant violation of our neutrality policy or adding too much coolness to userpages are considered vandalism. Since I am clearly not rouge, I have blocked you indefinitely for your one act of isolated vandalism, amongst your months of hard work. That'll clearly tell you I'm not rouge. Deskana(banana)22:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nooo... how could I misinterpret the signs...? (points to the distance) Riana told me to do it, and I did it like a good sock Oh no, I just revealed damning evidence to a checkuser :) --DarkFallstalk05:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey --DarkFallstalk can you do me a favor and look at the Race and crime article. As you will note on the history page [11] this piece was considered for {Afd}. However, an individual believed a consensus was made to “Keep”. I am sorry, I feel this article is clearly a WP:POV involving original research. At its best, it is inflammatory and derogatory from its opening sentence to the list of [12] links. Thanks for any input on this matter. Shoessss | Chat 01:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be wiser to discuss the deletion with the admin who closed the afd. Although I would certainly agree that there is a heap of synthesis of the sources and POV in the article, I am wary of overturning the judgement of another admin. The article is notable, although speculative, disputed and unverifiable information dominates most of it... Try holding another another afd or use Deletion review if Nihonjoe is inactive or adamant on the closure, and you still disagree. --DarkFallstalk06:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fremont Water Park It's not copyright violation
It's not copyright violation. site.
The City has established this website for the primary purpose of providing information to the public regarding services available to the public from City government, as well information regarding services available to the public from other governmental agencies and private organizations in partnership with the City.
I believe the latest DYK update was done by you. There is still some cleanup/updates to be done:
The articles that have been selected as featured DYK, still appear as nominations under the August 15 articles heading as seen here. They will have to be removed to avoid confusion.
Not all DYK nominators and creators, have been credited for DYK.
me catalan natio alist? let me laugh!!! Just because of my IP adddress? ouauuuuuh please surf the net, and look for 'zombies' and 'free proxies' X-DDDDDDDD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.67.46 (talk) 20:31, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, nice rant above. Reply on my talk page and I may read it next time :P
Now, the reason I'm here is that I remember seeing somewhere that you're somewhat of a regular at DYK. If that's true (if not, I'll find someone else), could you take a look at the fact[13] I just submitted, and give me feedback on how to improve it to get it listed? Thanks, and reply on my talk please :) Giggy\Talk06:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. The alternative one could be
"...that the aggression of The Predators' debut EP, Pick Up the Pace, was influenced by the nicknames of the band members ("shark", "wolf", "condor", and "piranha")?"
You're coming from Earth... Well I agree with the pizza dish here, using my example is much less POV as it does not infer the amount of aggression in the EP. --DarkFallstalk10:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see any that might be uncommon. The trouble with music is that there's hardly any hooks in them, as opposed to a person's life... --DarkFallstalk10:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No can do, pizza dish. You specifically said above that "Well, I'll outshine the chicken on or off the pizza! :)" Now you face the circumstances of being outshone by the pizza. Feel the humiliation... :P --DarkFallstalk10:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You dare contradict me on my talk page? I am god here! And you shouldn't be talking. "If I can make a comment" That makes no coherent sense. You are asking someone to give permission to make a comment, whilst you do it anyway. The sentence is meaningless, and is patent nonsense. Strong :P --DarkFallstalk10:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
God eh??!!! And does that exempt you from the general laws of correctness in the English language?! Does it?! Eh?! It does not! I will not stand for it! I will not stand forbad useof the English languageblah blah blah blah blah... :P -- Anonymous DissidentTalk10:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as you can see I have withdrawn my rfa as to be honest looking at it now I probably wouldn't have supported it if I was on the judging, first of all i would like to thank you for you comments and although you did not support I was glad to have some feedback. I can understand your concerns about me being an admin and I will try and address them in the future(in particular mainspace edits). I will continue most of my regular actives but I am also going to try to get many Linux articles up to GA status as well as trying to get some previous Linux FA back up to FA. As for future rfas i am pretty sure I will try again but I am not going to put a date on it. --Chris G 12:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fremont Water Park It's not copyright violation
I know now I can't because it's all rights reserved. Why can you posted City Website link? Why you can posted someone information on your website?
Some people want to know what is Fremont Water Park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.194.206 (talk) 02:27, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
A draft? Do you think? For some reason, I gave the answers to Maxim - he asked for them. Maybe we should make the page soon or even now? Then we just adjust the time when it is ready? Alternatively, we could make a draft like you suggested. What do you say? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk03:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the draft. I mean, Maxim, the nom, is supposed to technically create the proper page. I don't mind. It's up to you. We don't even have to make a draft if you don't want to. I really, really don't care either way. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk03:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently there are some very rabid fans of Death Note, of which they claim the movie has ripped off. See my user page history, the Talk page of the film, and the actors in the film page histories. Perhaps I should have protected the page for a longer amount of time. -- Gogo Dodo09:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was probably some sockpuppetry going on. These sleeper accounts just showing up all at once is rather suspicious. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some forum post that coordinated all of this. Thankfully, the problem seems to have settled down. Thanks for letting me rant. =) -- Gogo Dodo18:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the precise reason the history is for, although I do admit that it is more convenient. Btw he's already blocked, but please keep the advice in mind. --DarkFallstalk07:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the code has finally prevailed over me... Truly a sad day for DarkFalls... (Well, I was hoping noone noticed I ran out of room in the edit summary. Stupid MediaWiki technology that keeps Wikipedia running...) Well since I am allowed vanity until I closed the tags, I AM SUPERMAN, THE BEST PERSON EVER...</vanity> No fun anymore... :) --DarkFallstalk11:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dalmatia arbitration request
Thanks for the statement, I knew I missed a few editors who may have something pertinent to add. There are so many articles and parties involved it gets hard to keep track of them.--Isotope23talk13:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please help
Hi! A problem has appeared. User:Giovanni Giove discovered that User:No.13 was a sockpuppet. Pleased by his discovery, he has gone on a killing spree: he deleted No.13's comments on Talk:Croatisation and reverted the edits of 6 different editors here and 8 different editors here. After I warned him, he reverted my attempt at returning the status quo of those articles and said he would bring back the edits he likes. I have no intention of wasting hours to verify what that wiki-newbie will actually do. Please do something about it, it's a real nuisance. --Zmaj14:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DarkFalls I am here to inform you that your userpage or talk page has been conquered by the Earth Cabal. Please don’t panic; there is nothing you can do about it. You are hereby invited to join the Cabal, and help conquer other pages for our cause. See User:Hirohisat/Earth Cabal for more information. Thank you, have a nice, irregular weather day, and welcome to Earth. --HirohisatKiwi07:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged. I have counseled my side to not edit war over the template further, and I can only hope the other parties will exercise restraint as well.--Father Goose07:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As regards the "editing without consensus" comment you left, I cannot say how possible that will be; all further edits to the page of any sort might be resisted, as the other party has expressed a desire to "bury it", and getting the page protected serves to bury it quite well.--Father Goose07:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wikipedia:User page specifically says: "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history." Therefore, there is no reason to protect a user talk page simply because that user is blanking it. ugen6406:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok ok im trying to remain civil but when an admin is so mean and annoying and hittin a girl it sjust wrong i know this guy in real life and i saw you hit your girl friend tday. It was just wrong and absolutley sickening i hope i never see you do that again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Homo erectus reborn again imback again 3000 (talk • contribs)
One, I don't have a girlfriend. Two, if you ever looked at my userpage on your way to vandalize it, take note of "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. ~ Isaac Asimov" Three, if you ever wished to have your comments taken merit of, you'll realize that the obvious sockpuppetry isn't the way to do it. --DarkFallstalk09:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
H.Erectus socks...
Might be a couple more for ya... (No contribs yet, however...)
This is all wrong, all wrong. I don't understand this at all. You're my sock. I gave you no powers. Rarrr! And the logistics confuse me. Do I have supreme power over EVula also? Or is it just the part of me which is in fact you? These and other confusing questions must be answered ASAP. ~ Riana ⁂16:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
