User:Perspicacite/Archive

Re: Hi
I replied to your question on my talk page. + A.0u  01:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Harakat
Hello Perspicacite, I don't think I'm the best person to ask as I can't read or write Arabic script, but my understanding of the Wikipedia style guidelines is that the extra strokes to indicate the vowel sounds are not usually written in Arabic script, and thus are not included here. I would recommend you ask User:Anas_Salloum, he's very well versed in such topics. Regards, -- Jeff3000 02:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre
Our article on the Srebrenica massacre has seen lots of discussion because it is a controversial subject. As you noticed, any edits you (or anybody else) make without giving a clear explanation of your reasoning are likely to be deleted. Please leave a comment on the talk page giving the reasons for the edits that you want to make. Thanks, Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Zimbabwe articles
Thanks for all your copyedits to Zimbabwe history articles. Wizzy… &#9742;   08:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahrn Palley
The sources listed at the bottom of the article are the sources I actually used to write the article. Stop tagging as unreferenced an article which plainly is, it's testing my patience. Fys. Ta fys aym. 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your latest gem is to remove the fact that the Presidential election result in Zimbabwe Rhodesia was reported in the Daily Telegraph of 29 May 1979 and then describe this as unsourced. As a matter of fact I think a better source is the Journals of the House of Assembly although I can't remember which page exactly. But I doubt you've ever looked through every page of the Journals of the House of Assembly of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and every page of the Official Report of Debates to source articles, as I have because you'd rather spend your time tagging sourced items as unsourced. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 21:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Userpage and Rhodesian Front and Newcomer
''My comments originally posted on User talk:beneaththelandslide under the subheading of "Userpage and Rhodesian Front." All other comments were posted here under the subheading of "Newcomer."'' I saw you reverted my edit to Rhodesian Front. My edit changed a series of bullets into paragraph form. This is per Wikipedia's Manual of Style guidelines. If you disagree with my edit then please explain why - either on my talkpage or the article talkpage. I also see you reverted Gnome (Bot)'s edit to your userpage. The bot removed an unlicensed image, again per Wikipedia guidelines. It will do so again. Perspicacite 05:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem relatively new to Wikipedia. A few things:


 * 1) tags are immensely irritating. You could throw them into the most referenced article there is, but all they do is clog it up.
 * 2) Footnotes are ideal, especially for larger articles. But references, without specified page numbers, are fine. You cannot claim an article to be unreferenced when the references are listed, but aren't in footnote form.
 * 3) Key Wikipedia policy: Ignore all rules. Common sense should override policy where appropriate; there is no reason to mindlessly adhere to dogma when, in certain situations, it just doesn't help improve the encylopedia.

If you need any help, ask. But please realise that some editors here (like Fys) have been putting in for years, have contributed tens of thousands of words, and do not like seeing their hard work mangled due to a blind adherence to a particular interpretation of "policy".

Best wishes, michael talk 05:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from removing citations as you did here. Your conduct on Ahrn Palley follows into the category of Wikistalking. Additionally, referring to fact templates as "stupid" adds nothing to the discussion. Perspicacite 05:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not "wikistalking" (a loose, undefined and farcical concept). It's me having the items on my watchlist, noting the changes, and seeing about fixing them. Again, there is no need to meddle with articles. How about actually getting some books, sitting down, and writing one? Much better than removing references, adding countless fact tags, making articles harder to read, and irritating experienced users who enjoy writing for Wikipedia and shouldn't have to put up with recalcitrants. michael talk 05:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from referring to edits made in good faith as "vandalism" as you did here as this is an incorrect characterization and a misunderstanding of WP:VAND. Referring to my edits as "mindlessly adher[ing] to dogma" is also highly uncivil. Perspicacite 05:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again I ask that you maintain civility. Characterizing my edits as 'meddling with articles' is uncivil. I have written several articles on Wikipedia and have spent a considerable amount of time attributing content on Robert Mugabe. Please provide a single instance in which I have removed references. The grand total of fact tags I have added on Rhodesian Front and Ahrn Palley comes out to two. That's not exactly "countless." Calling me a recalcitrant is uncivil at best and a personal attack at worst. Perspicacite 05:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't wait to tuck into the articles on Mugabe and the 'Front and turn them into FA's. Perhaps Palley too. You've inspired me. (regards civility, hm? I'm not one for ass kissing, or blowing smoke up it, or adding fairy padding to my words. Straight and blunt: the way I like it. Much better than being a conceited snake who pretends to be civil for show) michael talk 05:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I see yesterday you referred to Mr Tan's edits on William Light as "idiocy in action." On Pookie (vehicle) you said, "idiots who put these banners in should be shot." On May 7 you said, "remove idiot fact template (whoever invented these should be shot) and fix." And, of course, calling me a "conceited snake who pretends to be civil for show." These are all violations of Wikipedia's civility policy. Perspicacite 05:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's probably plenty more examples of my 'incivility' if you want to look all the way back through the thousands of edits I've made. But, shouldn't you not be wikistalking? Leave it here. End. Why keep playing tit-for-tat? I'm going to get back to researching for, improving, and writing articles. michael talk 05:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your kind words on my talk page. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 05:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of line spaces
I responded on: Talk:Decriminalization of marijuana in the United States —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 21:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ezra articile
removal of information even if you are upset of scholarly criticism goes against npov of wikipedia do it again and i will contact an admin about blocking you for a day

--Java7837 21:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hilarious. 00:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with putting other points of views especially scholarly opinions on other pages the fact is all it was saying was the bible, the talmud, the zohar, Midrash Rabba, Sefer haYashar (midrash), Midrash Tanchuma, Ein Yaakov, etc. never say Ezra is the son of God

Ask any Jew you can meet if they think ezra is the son of God this is one of the reasons why i left islam it only provides lies about the Jews and Christians and then put great restrictions on them because they aren't muslims no concept of all are equal before the law.

Yes I did they are very very very similar! --Java7837 00:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My ancestors were from Chechnya. --Java7837 00:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My grandfather was an ashkenazi jew (he converted to Islam)

Ashkenazi Jews are not descended of Khazars see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#_note-hammer

and

Anti-Zionism
Thanks for the note. I've removed the obviously false bit. Jayjg (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Elohim
In some cases, the Biblical plural noun Elohim acts as a semantically plural noun, apparently referring to multiple entities, and grammatically takes plural verb and adjective agreements. This type of situation is not usually referred to as "pluralis majestatis", and therefore your edits to article Elohim were not an improvement. AnonMoos 18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, I'm sorry I included 5 tildes to sign my comments instead of 4, but the simple fact is that the phrase 'Elohim 'Aћerim `Al-Panay "other Gods before me" occurs in the original Biblical Hebrew of 20:3 (where the adjective 'Aћerim "others" has a PLURAL grammatical ending) -- as the article adequately indicated before you started messing around with it. Since your familiarity with the details of Biblical Hebrew grammar and the real meaning of terms such as "pluralis maiestatis" would seem to be slightly shaky at best, it's really best for you not to make major edits to the article without discussing things on the talk page first. AnonMoos 23:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever -- "Maiestatis" is actually an acceptable spelling variation in some contexts (closer to the original ancient Latin spelling, as you would know if you actually knew Latin), and I contribute to the Latin Wikipedia (which I bet you don't).
 * On the actual main point at issue, you need to face up to the fact that if you can't look up the original Biblical Hebrew of Exodus 20:3 and understand what you're seeing, then you're just not competent to edit the Elohim article in the particular way in which you're editing it. If you want citations for relevant facts, then you should go about requesting citations in the proper manner (and/or actually discuss things on the article talk page) -- instead of mutilating the article by adding in a load of nonsense which accomplishes exactly nothing (and which I notice that you yourself haven't supplied any relevant sources for). AnonMoos 01:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, if you know Biblical Hebrew, then Exodus 20:3 is all the reference you need, because you simply turn to that passage and it's right there in front of your nose "as large as life and twice as natural". If you don't know Hebrew, then you're 100% dependent on your understanding (or misunderstanding) of what other people tell you at second- and third-hand.  I'm sure that The Complete Idiot's Guide to World Religions is a basic elementary introduction which is reasonably successful at the particular task it attempts to accomplish -- but perusing a work of that nature will not make you an expert in Biblical Hebrew word meanings, nor competent to debate the concepts of linguistics or the history of Judaism at the advanced level which is involved in your edits to the Elohim article.
 * Furthermore, the passage from said book is actually in basic agreement with my position. The fact that the word Elohim WHEN REFERRING TO THE GOD OF ISRAEL is grammatically singular was already explained at length in the article long before you came along.  However Elohim in the particular verse Exodus 20:3 is  NOT  referring to the God of Israel, but rather to "other gods", and in that verse the word has plural adjective agreement and also plural meaning (according to just about every Bible translation which has ever existed).  This has nothing to do with alleged "polytheism" (as you rather irrelevantly complained about in one of your edit summaries).
 * Yet furthermore, the difference between Arabic 'Ilah (Allah without the definite article) and Hebrew 'Eloah (Elohim without the plural ending) might be loosely called a "pronunciation difference" when trying to roughly explain linguistics concepts to laymen, but professional linguists have a specialized technical terminology which they use in such cases (such as "cognate correspondences" etc.) -- a terminology which is actually much more correct in linguistic terms. Your deleting this correct linguistic terminology from the article in favor of ad hoc loose popularization words was distinctly not helpful.  AnonMoos 09:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Decriminalization of marijuana in the United States
Please stop making unnecessary and unconstructive edits, especially after they have been reverted multiple times. Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 01:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe
Hi!

You reverted my edit to the Zimbabwe article where I stated that the hyper inflation was cuase by the printing of to much currency and worened by economic output drops. I realise that this is a quite controversial article and that the exact cuase of hyperinflation in any country is always debatable but I do feel that the printing of currency faster than its withdrawal is the major cause in Zimbabwe. If you disagree as to it being the major cuase thats fine but it should at least be mentioned as it is happening in Zimbabwe (see sources at the bottom of hyperinflation). Perhaps we can find some middle ground?

Let me know what you think.

John

CaptinJohn 13:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

RhoZim
I am tempted to write a comprehensive article on the history of Rhodesia and Zimbabwe, but plan to do it in History of Zimbabwe with associated sub articles (e.g. History of Rhodesia 1895-1923, History of Zimbabwe 1980-1990, etc). The work over at the Rhodesia page is a filthy mess, half biased one way, and half biased the other. I don't want to attempt to clean up that trainwreck for a while. Michael talk 03:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Administration
Are you going to continue using this word inappropriately and out of context? I also noticed the "Smith apartheid administration" bit, which is more than just out of context, its untrue. Please tidy up your edits. Michael talk 09:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ian Smith
Rhodesia was not an unrecognized country. The government was unrecognized. Perspicacite 18:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC) OK. What do you think would be a new title for this category?Mohonu 20:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to go to "Category:Former unrecognized countries" and remove Rhodesia, because that is where I got the name from.Mohonu 03:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Clark Amendment
Hi there, Interesting bit of info you added to the Clark amendment article re Israel serving as a US proxy in Angola. (Glad to see that stub of an article expanded somewhat!) However, it really ought to give some indication of when that conversation transpired -- can you provide the month & year? (and perhaps even how long a time-span Israel served as a proxy)

On a different point, I'm 99.9% certain that Jane Haapiseva-Hunter (whoever she is) has nothing to do with the book in question. I googled her name, and it looks like she writes on religious subjects -- not geopolitics, which is (plain)-Jane Hunter's area of expertise. I'm guessing that perhaps you gleaned your info from an article that quoted the book, rather than directly from the book itself?? If that's the case, it would be better to cite the article instead of the book. (That's what the Wikipedia guidelines call for.)

Oh, one more thing before I sign off: it's always good to leave an edit summary when you finish -- really helpful to other editors. Regards, Cgingold 12:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Thanks for the external link you gave me -- it was extremely helpful to have the actual text (as well as a link to add to the article).
 * I'm copying your reply to the talk page for the article -- and I'm going to post a new paragraph there explaining the reasons for my edit. Regards, Cgingold 13:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Great work
Hi there.Great work on Zimbabwe articles. Africa Festival mangqina-Mazondo 01:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That edit to Mobutu Sese Seko made me giddy with delight. When I edited the early section a while back, I thought "somebody really needs to take an axe to the foreign policy sections", but took a pass myself.  Nice work. - BanyanTree 05:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Foreign policy of Mobutu Sese Seko
Hi Perspicacite. You are off to such a great start on the article Foreign policy of Mobutu Sese Seko that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 18:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Alvor Agreement
Hi Perspicacite. You are off to such a great start on the article Alvor Agreement that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 02:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for that :) ♠  TomasBat   23:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

French Defense minister
I have reverted your changes to Minister of Defence (France) and List of Defense Ministers of France‎, such big changes should be discussed on the talk page first. Carl Logan 08:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Press TV
Hi Perspicacite,

Is there some policy stating that Press TV cannot be referenced? It is a government run station, just as is the BBC and France 24. I don't see why it cannot be referenced. ... Seabhcan 21:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your edits to the Press TV article have been submitted to 3PO

Why do you keep deleting any reference to your Press TV edits from your talk page? Are you trying to hide your anti-Iranian edit history? Any way, as you can see here, I submitted a dispute to 3PO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PRESS_TV I wonder how long it will take you to nervously delete this. --Vitalmove 07:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, my extensive Iran-related edits shame me. Perspicacite 07:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You have plenty of anti-Muslim and anti Iranian edits in your history. Not sure why you're so interested in Islam and Iranian politics. --Vitalmove 07:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For shame, for shame. I have dishonored the tens of Muslim Angolans. Perspicacite 08:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Pleave get involved

Would you be so kind as to enter into the dialogue regarding your recent behavior on the Talk:PRESS_TV page?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 13:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: Mark Levine

While I still have doubts about Mark Levine's notability, I kinda say that the AFD nomination was going no where. Also I don't realy wont to get involved with this PRESS TV thing. – Zntrip 20:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:ANI

There's a thread on ANI about you here.-Wafulz 16:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What I don't condone is your repeated reverts of a perfectly reasonable edit at PRESS TV, done apparently to drive the other party into a WP:3RR violation which you then reported him for, and you not being willing to discuss the edits. That's edit warring.  I haven't looked into Vitalmove's accusations of WP:STALKing, so no opinion one way or the other, but it's a serious accusation.  That said, I also don't condone Vitalmove's behavior in reverting you right back, or in making comments that are bordering on personal attacks.  Mango juice talk 12:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

1RR violation
Regarding your comment here, User:Hajji Piruz is formerly User:Azerbaijani, and is on 1RR per week parole by ArbCom, see here. Not only he makes reverts but does not even discuss them on the talk page violating ArbCom decision. Atabek 00:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * None of those were reverts, they were edits. Look closely at the diff's, I did not add or remove anything from the article in the second of third diff's, I simply changed the wording as per the clean up tag to make the article better. You should porbably know that there is currently an arbcom going on right now in which Atabek and I are involved...Hajji Piruz 02:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I made no reverts, look at the diff's closely.
 * For example: The second diff Atabek posted, I changed "...is compounded by the ideological distortions which took place during their political reign, although they were probably of Kurdish or Iranian descent" to "is compounded by the ideological distortions which took place during their political reign, although they were probably Iranian, most likely Kurdish, descent" because the previous sentence did not make sense. Since you are not familiar with the subject, I will explain, Kurds are an Iranian people, so it doesnt make sense to say that they were probably of Kurdish or Iranian descent, because how can someone be of British and Indo-European descent, the British are a sub branch of Indo-Europeans, its the same with Kurds and Iranian. So I changed that sentence to say "probably Iranian, most likely Kurdish" which means that they were probably of Iranian origin, most likely of the Kurdish sub group.
 * Its the same situation for the third diff Atabek posted. None of these were reverts, these were fixes. None of these were reverts to any previous version and the second and third diff's had no removal of information at all, contrary to what Atabek claims.Hajji Piruz 02:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR on Bennie Noakes
Thanks for looking into this 3RR vio report. Just fyi, I posted the 3RR vio a little over 24 hours ago. Since that time, the edit warring to keep his OR/Synthesis in the article continued, so I had to have the article protected. Unfortunately, he cannot undo his last revert...but neither can he continue warring. :)

I know blocks aren't punative, but are instead meant to stop edit warring; so if he's not blocked for the infraction, he should be at least warned by an admin. I believe he will continue using the tactic of revert warring in the future if something is not said. Thanks for your time! Dreadstar †  10:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you a Wikipedia Administrator? I don't see your name on the list.  Are you involved in addressing 3RR violations, or just acting as a clerk?  BTW, the note you left on his talk page left out info on the 24 hour period generally used to count reverts for the purposes of 3RR.  Fairly important...;)  Dreadstar  †  10:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! Thanks for your great reply! I agree with you on the delay, waiting over 24 hours for a response to a 3RR vio when editwarring is going on...not good!  Seems to be more workload than the admins can handle.  I know what you mean about late/early...me too...tired, mistakes...Gahhh is right!  Good luck with the admin quest, I wouldn't mind taking up the mop and broom myself one day.  Dreadstar  †  19:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Socialdemocrats
Perspicacite I think you should read his/her edit history more carefully. Some of his edits are vandalism, most of the rest are just edit wars that he/she runs continually. On his Vandalism, please check what he did over the John Major image that was uploaded by another user. The image was found to have copyright problems so that same user replaced it with an image that was free from problems. Over the next week Socialdemocrats continually replaced the old image until it was removed for violation when the time had run out. Socialdemocrats has done this on several other occasions. The rest of the edits are continious edit wars with other users, which are generally spiced with abusive language. All I can say is good luck trying to talk with Socialdemocrats. The rest of us have tried and got no-where... Galloglass 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do wish you well in this Perspicacite. The thing is SereneEYE has tried the nice approrach, I've tried the constructive approach, in fact we've tried everything we can think of and its not worked. Its not as if we're dealing with someone of low ability. The person concerned has a VERY high IQ and knows their way around Wiki very well. AS long as you know what you are dealing with then you have every right to try and help Socialdemocrats and I do hope you succeed. Galloglass 08:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Rhodesian Bush War Move
I understand your reason in moving the page back and I am totally aware that there was no consensus in this affair. I understand you need my cooperation, but I think it is best that we move the page to a more neutral name. I will not try to move it, and I will comply with your move, but I think that many would agree that having a neutral name would be much better than having a senseless argument about naming.

(Bluelist 15:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC))

RE Barrel Roll
Thanks for the compliment. No, I have not even thought about it. Why bother? I have had two previous A-class articles up for FA (Cambodian Civil War and Battle of Khe Sanh) and neither one made it. "Too long", "too detailed", "wrong style," etc. I would rather the articles stay as they are than see them bastardized for the sake of non-military editors. Once again, thanks for the compliment. RM Gillespie 15:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

MDC
Perspicacite ,hey sorry for stepping on your edits,but there are many untruths on the newly added material.I am not violating WP:3RR because I am reverting clearly libelous material, and poorly sourced controversial material.The style the material was written is promotional in nature,and that is a clear violation.Let us revert to the old article first,and discuss the issue on the Talk.The new material is added by one Vusa Dube with one agenda;I don't know what it is but I know its sinister.We expect editors to be professional period.

MDC split
New material on the split must be discussed before edits.Newly registered members are vandalizing this entry.

Mainstream Faction of the MDC
The following 10 links from both the Zimbabwe government,and independent media palpably say that the MDC main wing is led by founding president Morgan Tsvangirai,a fact new edits want to shield.This whats on the ground and we must be factual. Should I say more,just do the research.


 * http://allafrica.com/stories/200707130559.html
 * http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411366/1221780
 * http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-07-15-voa21.cfm
 * http://www.zimonline.co.za/Article.aspx?ArticleId=1158
 * http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1114&Itemid=44
 * http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1072&Itemid=44
 * http://74.52.38.210/~makusha1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=561&Itemid=2
 * http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/feb8_2006.html
 * http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__africa/&articleid=301764
 * http://www.thestatesmanonline.com/pages/news_detail.php?section=1&newsid=3928

Excuse me?
Why are you duplicating the talk page of Macedonians (ethnic group)? And what do you mean by me "vandalizing"? The case has been discussed with an administrator already. Also, do not post false results on the 3RR page as you are not an admin. Mr. Neutron 02:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not revert the 3RR page or I will report you. Mr. Neutron 02:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA
For the record, Perspicacite, you should probably try again in a few months if you wish to become an admin. While your attempt to help out at WP:AN3 was a nice idea, you really should know that admins can block for a reason; they have gained the community's trust. I should also tell you that your RFA would likely have failed anyway had you not been blocked, you've only been here since may and have amassed fewer than 2,000 edits. However, as I said, give it a few months and you should pass.  New  England  (C) (H)
 * Owing to that and the other comments on your RFA, I've closed it as unsuccessful per WP:SNOW. I do suggest reading up on policies and guidelines, get acquainted with the rest of the community, and earn their trust.  Just give it a few months, and the community is likely to change their minds.  Cheers, ( [ →]O - RLY?) 08:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert rule
I did break the rule I admit but it think many other guys did too. Talk Page
 * 14:08, 21 July 2007 CZmarlin (Talk | contribs) m (54,251 bytes) (Undid revision 146097104 by Archer5054 (talk)rv to an image where car is visible) (undo)
 * 14:08, 21 July 2007 CZmarlin (Talk | contribs) m (54,251 bytes) (Undid revision 146097104 by Archer5054 (talk)rv to an image where car is visible) (undo)
 * 02:15, 22 July 2007 CZmarlin (Talk | contribs) m (54,298 bytes) (Undid revision 146208063 by 66.87.15.230 (talk)rv to an image where the car is visible in daylight) (undo)
 * 16:48, 22 July 2007 CJ DUB (Talk | contribs) (50,972 bytes) (→Fourth generation (1994–2004) - rem redundant or crappy images) (undo)
 * 00:29, 24 July 2007 CJ DUB (Talk | contribs) (50,834 bytes) (Undid revision 146595957 by Archer5054 (talk) NP) (undo)
 * 00:40, 24 July 2007 CJ DUB (Talk | contribs) (50,834 bytes) (Undid revision 146650412 by Archer5054 (talk)undo AGAIN) (undo)
 * 01:09, 24 July 2007 CJ DUB (Talk | contribs) (50,834 bytes) (Undid revision 146654336 by Archer5054 (talk)You=wrong. No more superfluous images when there is NO CONTENT) (undo)

This doesn't justify my breaking it, I just read him say that there are to many pictures on that page I feel that the picture I tried to post was different cause it shows what custom add-ons that are popular for the mustang, many of the other pictures are redundant they are all stock mustangs. The problem is that it shows many pictures of the same year of mustangs but different packages... I wanted to show what kind of mustang people are most likely to see (I my version it best explains the mustang to the average person). The pictures on that page that should be deleted are the ones that show canvas convertible mustangs or the other available packages because people can picture that on their own, while the picture I posted shows stuff that is more in-tune with what people would what to see when reading about Mustang custom add-ons. --Archer5054 07:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Booyabazooka's RfA
Hi, I noticed that you opposed Requests for adminship/Booyabazooka based on the candidate's erratic editing habits. I don't know if you've seen his comment underneath your oppose; he explains why his editing has been erratic, and also states that he checks his watchlist daily and would therefore not be unavailable for urgent business. Since this was the only rationale you gave, you might want to reconsider your oppose. WaltonOne 12:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A Mighty Heart
This is not debateble. Removal of tags without first discussing it and coming to a consensus (vandalism) and POV-pushing are not acceptable. NPOV violations are not vandalism until the user repeatedly reinserts the statements. It is also unfortunate when Jordanjames/99.244.13.233 will not respond to requests for discussion. Due to the look of his talk pages and his silence I consider his edits as being in bad faith, you may assume good faith if you so choose. But I'd rather you not dictate to me what I can and cannot call an abusive user's actions. -- WiccaIrish 08:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do what again? Is this all of your case? It is doubtful that an administrator would do much, if anything. I'll have no problem reporting silly, baseless threats. -- WiccaIrish 09:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinion
Whatever my misgivings regarding your own editing style, I don't doubt that you've got a calculating mind—so I'd like to take advantage of it! Any comments, opinion, etc regarding the progress of this article would be very much appreciated. Thank you, Michael talk 07:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material
Sir, please discuss the deletion of sourced material on the talk page.Ultramarine 15:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Bdell555 3RR
If you read the history, you will find that the edit-war comment was not mine, but User:RedSpruce's. I'd appreciate it if you'd strike the comment you made.  E LIMINATOR JR  TALK  17:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Zimbabwe Members
Your thoughts please: Zwerrifringweraand has been blocked and is therefore no longer a part of Wikipedia. I removed him from the list of members for this reason. Do you think he should remain a member despite being unable to make contributions? Mangwanani 16:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Interview
Thanks, I've added it as an ext. link. Might be useful to expand the article as well; I think there's a few things in there that our article doesn't have yet. Everyking 11:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

WP Zimbabwe August 2007
Mangwanani 08:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

PRESS TV and 3RR
Are you sure?


 * previous version from 7/3
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4

He reverted me the first time as well, so I think he's actually over the limit. Anyhow, I don't like to trick people or irritate them this way. If the article is still unacceptable in a few hours I'll fix it, but not just because he is forbidden from reverting again. Cool Hand Luke 20:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for informing me, but I don't realy want to get involved. It seems like Vitalmove doesn't want to discuss anything. My only suggestion is to notify the admins. if he's not playing nice. – Zntrip 22:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh
My mistake. I often miss obvious sarcasm. Cool Hand Luke 05:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR report
I think I added in the times now. GreenJoe 18:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Zimbabwe
Fix it if it's ungrammatical. There is nothing speculative in it. Ark La 20:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

CITET formatting
It seems to me that the cite templates are a lot easier to maintain when each parameter is on a separate line: it also make it easier to read, since the beginning and ending of the template are very clear.--SarekOfVulcan 18:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ethiopian Civil War
Sorry, I don't know anything about it (I mostly know about music and cuisine). Badagnani 03:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Robert Mugabe
Hello,

why nonsense ? Robert Mugabe is the leader of an awovedly racist regime. Unless you think anti-white racism isn't racism.You have no need to be arrogant. Thanks. Wedineinheck 07:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And who are you supposed to be, to address me like that, may I ask ? Instead of politely writing me, you start by accusing me of writing nonsense. Thereby, I have every right of considering you as arrogant and that you use personal attacks. Wedineinheck 07:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Wedineinheck
When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:uw-test1&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. nattan g 08:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wedinheick
Thanks for the response. I find I disagree with your assessment of the situation. In my view his repeated personal attacks - that I am an "arrogant," "obnoxious," "cry-baby" fall into the realm of unacceptable behavior. As he has continued to make such comments after repeated warnings from Nat and myself I find that his actions merit a block. He seems to believe his behavior is... tolerable. I hope you do not. Perspicacite 09:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for messaging me.
 * I agree Wedineinheck's reactions aren't helping at all, and suggest Wedineinheck has a problem with perspective (perhaps partially because they may be too new here to know what to expect).
 * But calling good faith (albeit crummy) edits "vandalism" appears to be what set Wedineinheck off on this trajectory. Your 2nd warning starts out good, but then quickly puts this user on the defensive.
 * I can't insist this wouldn't have happened if you WP:AGF'ed and patiently explained what Wedineinheck did wrong. But Wedineinheck seems to believe they've been unfairly persecuted.
 * For what it's worth, I've probably done this to new editors as well. It's something to look out for. / edg ☺ ★ 09:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Revamp
Just to let you know, I have completely revamped the WikiProject Zimbabwe page so that it is more uniform to the layout and design of other WikiProjects. Please have a look and try to fill in any of the new sections created. Your help is much appreciated. Many thanks, Mangwanani 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Not a problem. It is well deserved. I have been spending more time trying to get WikiProject Zimbabwe to the same stantard as the other more developed WikiProjects. This includes the Categories, Subcategories, Sub pages to the project etc. This has taken over me doing edits but I would like to get it as "complete" as possible. I am thinking of starting a Sub-WikiProject for Harare. Any thoughts? As you may have noticed, I have changed the WikiProject Zimbabwe template so that it now incorporates ratings. This was mainly done so that we, as the editors, can identify articles which need work and how urgent that work needs doing. I have started going through the list of articles in the Category:WikiProject Articles and any help in doing this large task is much appreciated. For any future articles you may write, you may also like to know, if you don't already, that I have also created an abbreviated version of the said template. It can be found here WPZW. Once again, many thanks in your continuing contributions Mangwanani 15:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on Zimbabwe
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --John 20:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"The core content is fine. The only reason we've been reverting you, as we already stated, is because of how sloppy and ungrammatical the content is. If you fix the grammar there would not be a problem." Next time just fix the grammar and we won't have to have all this hassle!--John 01:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Harnessing Wikipedia
That's the problem I have the idea, but currently lack the means. It does not make sense that with all the technology life expectancy in Zimbabwe for females and males is 24 and 37 respectively. Not forgetting the record inflation, food shortages and collapse of the health system. We now live in a multipolar world where ordinary humans have the power to do something. Surely something can and should be done. I am working on it - thinking of a way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Part (talk • contribs) 10:41, August 29, 2007 (UTC) PS. I have left our message to the father of Wikipedia user:Jimbo Wales. Part 10:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WPZW September
Hi,

As the number of people taking part in WikiProject Zimbabwe grows, I have more and more people to notify of changes. If you havn't already done so, please could you add the notice board to your watch list so that I can add any changes there and only once not as many times as there are members. Many thanks, Mangwanani 13:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews
May I ask what is wrong with Wikinews? I mean, everything over there is sourced, and every article combines at least two other reputable ones, so I'd say it's even better than a narmal source. Could you elaborate? Thanks, Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mobutu Sese Seko
Hi Perspicacite, My low opinion of WP:GA, amongst other things, has overflowed into a bit of a tiff between the current reviewer and I over Mobutu Sese Seko. (1 & 2) You obviously value GA status and I would like to apologize to you if my actions have harmed its chances. Sincerely, BanyanTree 08:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you very much for your support at my RfA. Regards, Jogers (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect
if you wish to discuss the Harare/Salisbury redirect issue, please contact me on my talk page, or the Harare discussion page.Sennen goroshi 17:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perspicacite, Salisbury UK is an ancient city that still goes by that name, and when people are searching wikipedia it is much more likely they are looking for that one rather than the old capital of Zimbabwe. That is the reason for the redirect. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 08:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Perspicacite, I have been reading up on the Salisbury/Harare issue and to be honest no one uses the Salisbury name for Harare any more as Harare is now the more common and official name. I have to agree with Wizzy that people searching for Salisbury are more likely to want Salisbury UK than Harare and I think that a link a the top of the Salisbury UK page to Harare should be included. Sorry, I know that this is your express intention but to be fair Salisbury UK is where the redirect should go. Mangwanani 16:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PMOI
I've tried to get protection before, but the level of vandalism is not high enough. It's frustrating that it's the same people posting the same POV. If it keeps up, I might try getting at least one editor blocked. Dchall1 21:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring on MDC
We ave settled our deferences with Fys on the MDC,My problem was that he was removing sourced material,which is against the pillars of Wiki.But you should see the development I have made on the MDC article and other Zimbabweanand South African articles in general.Africa Festival —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Demographic Analysis
It does not make sense to redirect Demographic Analysis to Demography. The methods of Demographic Analysis are used in a wide range of fields: education, historical comparative research, the study of firms, turnover and population ecology. The methods warrant their own discussion, as well as a review of the contemporary application of the methods to a variety of social scientific questions. Please do not issue redirects to pages without discussion first. Thanks. --Htw3 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi-- I believe Dr. Clark offers a high quality introduction to the methods in question: http://faculty.washington.edu/samclark/Soc433/.  Of course, many of the methods developed to answer questions of human population dynamics have been applied to other fields.  Notably, firms, organizations, institutions, institutional forms; as well as turnover retention within organizations; and social networks all benefit from methods developed originally in demography.  Finally, demographic analysis is not the same thing as the field of demography.  Most graduate courses in demography are topically focused and the methods are applied well beyond those topics. --Htw3 02:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Gibson Sibanda
Hi.

I noticed that you have been helping me assess the Zimbabwe-related articles. Thanks. However, I just noticed one article Gibson Sibanda as being rated B class. This article is no where near B class, in fact it is only just outside of stub class. I hope this is the only article that has been assessed incorrectly...

If you are unsure please refer to the assessment page.

It still has a stub template on it and I am weary of even making it a start class article as it is so short.

Just thought I would draw your attention to this matter.

Mangwanani 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's nowhere near enough information for it to be a B class. Even if the topic is a fairly small one it is still the amount of content that sets it up as the certain class. If you aren't sure what to rate them as then just put the WPZW template on and I shall rate it as i work my way through the unassessed articles. Thanks for your continued help.Mangwanani 17:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani controversies additions
Excellant work!!

You'd probably appreciate watching Kevin Keating's documentary on his mayoralty, Giuliani Time. Dogru144 00:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Cess
Although UrbanDIctionary barely qualifies as a "reliable source" per WP:RS, remember that these are guidelines first and foremost. WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR are the relevant policies that apply to this issue, and the edit and sourcing that had been put in for the slang definition of Cess fall within the limits stipulated in both of these policies. In particular, my caveat is that UrbanDictionary is one of the few organizations dedicated to documenting vernacular phrases, idioms and other slang terms that have yet to be adopted by the mainstream population. When an article is edited and a definition of this type added, UrbanDictionary should be considered a reliable source. --CespiT 15:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Guan Shengdi
Just a friendly heads up on Guan Shengdi. I removed your speedy tag, as this seems to be for real. A gsearch for "Guan Sheng di" (with a space in the last word) gives several sources that look (to my unexpert eye) to be legit. Is there something else going on with this subject that I'm not seeing that would lead to a need for deletion?--Fabrictramp 22:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WPRhodesia
Hi. I have started a sub-WikiProject for Rhodesian articles. May be easier to have one department working on Rhodesian articles and another on Zimbabwean. Time will tell... When working through Zimbabwe articles if you come across an article that is relevant to Rhodesia please change the assessment box so that it reads and therefore listed as an article for the new Rhodesian WikiProject.

Mangwanani 16:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Human rights in Eritrea
In this page you have made numerous POV edits without discussion. Please discuss, and do not introduce POV into the article. Also, do not remove PoV labels. --Merhawie 01:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hadith
I did not warn you for vandalism. Rather, I asked you to use the talk page as you reverted many good faith edits. As for Aterkmani, he was exhibiting the same behaviour as he did on Post which I consider vandalism. --NeilN 06:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Re Aterkmani. Then we disagree.  That's fine.  --NeilN 06:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad Faith Assumption?
Did you really just accuse me of vandalism? In my haste, perhaps I thought the obit was already attached to the article, because it was listed on the recent deaths page, but here it is, although the date was wrong, he was indeed dead, so it's hardly vandalism. I think you might want to review WP:AGF. Cheers, CP 21:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Zimbabwe GA
Hi. I was wondering if you would like to have a quick look at the Zimbabwe article. I have been doing a lot of work on it based on the comments given after the last GA review. It read:

This article does not meet the current Good Article criteria, and will not be listed at the present time. Most obvious is the recent edit warring, as well as the current page protection, which expires on 10/2/2007. So it fails the stability criteria.

There are also some significant organizational issues with the article. The lead section, and history look very good, and could be used as a model for other sections. There are zero references in the 'human rights' section under government, which should be addressed. The 'geography' section is a bit heavy on photos and images, with little text. Plus, the section ends with just a listing of districts, with no description of their interrelationships.

The economy section actually looks pretty good.

The 'demographics' section is too long, and contains much unrelated information. Remove 'and ethnicity' from the title of the section, as that should be implied by demographics anyway. The section should cover information about the population and demographic statistics only. The education information should be included in its own separate section, and it should be written as prose, too, not just a list of schools. The many subsection headers in this section are very confusing, and should eliminated. Things like language, religion, and ethnic groups, are part of demographics, but don't necessarily need their own subsection headers (unless that particular subsection is very long).

The culture section is very short, and has some very short subsections. This could be expanded. It is also pretty much devoid of reference citations, which is another issue with the GA criteria.

Move the large template out of the 'see also' section and put it at the bottom of the article, which is where such templates should go. They almost never look good in the middle of the article like this one is. The 'see also' section should just contain a brief list of articles of similar topics to the current topic, and wikilinks that are already used earlier in the text should generally not be listed in the section either.

There seems to be quite a few external links. It might be advisable to go through them and eliminate a few. Take a look at WP:EL for guidelines on this.

Editors might want to see some other articles on nations, such as Brazil and United States, for a possible model of what a good article should look like. Other useful resources include WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, and WP:CITE. Good luck! Dr. Cash 02:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that as a team we have met all these points bar one - the one about moving the Topics of Zimbabwe out of the See Also section. I have not done this as Russia, Germany, South Africa, United Kingdom and other countries have this box in the See Also section.

Before I put the article forward again for GA review I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Mangwanani 21:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Civility
Hi. Could you please tone it down a little? This edit seems unnecessarily uncivil. When I saw you had a prior block for incivility, I nearly blocked you without a specific warning, as I didn't think your recent posts at AN/I were helpful either; William Pietri is trying to help you there and you seem determined not to take the help. In any case, I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt. Please, however, be in no doubt that continued comments like that will likely lead to a block. Please choose wisely. --John 07:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Frank Gaffney
Regardless of any other concerns at WP:ANI, please do not re-introduce the Jewish-American category into this article without sourcing it. I'm sure you realise that you should not be doing this. Thanks,  E LIMINATOR JR  16:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I sounded like I was accusing you of introducing the item first, and it is indeed a revert, however when reverting you need to ensure you are not re-introducing unsourced material, especially on a biography of living persons.  E LIMINATOR JR  22:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Art of Zimbabwe
yes, I probably should have checked and fixed the link rather than just reverting -- that was lazy of me. Sorry about that. thanks for the note! bikeable (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My comment about RfC
I was not referring to the check user request. I was recommending that you file an RfC on the dispute with Alice S. I felt--and still feel--that this would illuminate for you that you were in the wrong in this case. You were behaved uncivilly toward her and others in both the Gaffney and the Tolekau AN/I threads. That was my only reason for recommending an RfC to you: I wanted you to be able to solicit outside opinions on your conduct during the disputes. As things appear to have calmed now, I do hope you will not continue to reintroduce unsourced material per WP:BLP, and that you will refrain from attacking other users as you did on the AN/I. I'm certain you have much to offer the project, and I'm glad things have calmed down. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 03:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Civility
Hi. Could you please tone it down a little? This edit seems unnecessarily uncivil. When I saw you had a prior block for incivility, I nearly blocked you without a specific warning, as I didn't think your recent posts at AN/I were helpful either; William Pietri is trying to help you there and you seem determined not to take the help. In any case, I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt. Please, however, be in no doubt that continued comments like that will likely lead to a block. Please choose wisely. --John 07:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Frank Gaffney
Regardless of any other concerns at WP:ANI, please do not re-introduce the Jewish-American category into this article without sourcing it. I'm sure you realise that you should not be doing this. Thanks,  E LIMINATOR JR  16:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I sounded like I was accusing you of introducing the item first, and it is indeed a revert, however when reverting you need to ensure you are not re-introducing unsourced material, especially on a biography of living persons.  E LIMINATOR JR  22:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Art of Zimbabwe
Yes, I probably should have checked and fixed the link rather than just reverting -- that was lazy of me. Sorry about that. thanks for the note! bikeable (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My comment about RfC
I was not referring to the check user request. I was recommending that you file an RfC on the dispute with Alice S. I felt--and still feel--that this would illuminate for you that you were in the wrong in this case. You were behaved uncivilly toward her and others in both the Gaffney and the Tolekau AN/I threads. That was my only reason for recommending an RfC to you: I wanted you to be able to solicit outside opinions on your conduct during the disputes. As things appear to have calmed now, I do hope you will not continue to reintroduce unsourced material per WP:BLP, and that you will refrain from attacking other users as you did on the AN/I. I'm certain you have much to offer the project, and I'm glad things have calmed down. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 03:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Apology
I would like to apologise unreservedly if I have caused you any stress or embarrassment.

I am very new here and I was insensitive in not adequately realising that you might take offence at my presumption in editing articles to which you had already made valuable and long-term improvements.

Please feel free to sound-off at me by e-mail in future if I put a step wrong - you're a much more experienced editor than I and I'm sure that you can teach me a lot. You know what they say "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" and on that assessment I'm really scary!

I've also apologised here but on re-reading that edit again, it sounds a bit havering and grudging.

If that apology is not sufficient please e-mail me what you would like me to write and I'll re-do it.

Sorry again! Alice.S 21:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Frank Gaffney
I had read a comment placed by another user which stated that he was, and I had always suspected it to be the case given his commentaries on certain issues (he is a writer for the Jewish World Review). However he does not widely publicize it and I'm unable to find a link for sure, aside from certain forums which mention that he is. So in retrospect this may be an error; even if it is not it seems to be against Wikipedia policy. BogdanM02 02:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Your reply
No, I do not think that you are stupid, but your immediate assumption that I am trying to bait you, rather than raise real concerns about how you interact with other editors, is an excellent illustration of the problem. Please step back and think about how your edits and edit summaries appear to others. Tim Vickers 03:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a good way of responding to criticism, your needlessly confrontational and aggressive attitude is unacceptable. Tim Vickers 03:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think edit summaries such as this are acceptable?

November 2007
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

Friendly advice
Hi again. I really think you should let this one go. This is highly unlikely to achieve anything. I have left similar advice on Alice's talk page. Please just move on and get on with something else. If there are specific concerns about the article, post them to article talk and I can have a look at them. --John 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How am I supposed to do that when she follows me to every page I edit? Perspicacite 00:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Some people are smart enough to get the hint, and to realise that when their rudeness and aggression has brought the attention of multiple admins, they had best be on their very best behaviour. Some people are less smart and choose to indulge themselves in further grandstanding and personalising of the issue.  Which kind are you, I wonder?  I'd just point out that it is the latter kind that tends to get banned.  Take care,  Guy (Help!) 00:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove Penwhale's comments? Perspicacite 04:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Violations of our WP:TALK guidelines
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Alice.S 11:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Past activities
You have just added this to your user page: "Currently I am working on getting Angolan Civil War to Featured Article status. After that I will attempt an utterly insane request for adminship, revealing my past activities and probably getting banned. Cheerio, Perspicacite 11:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)"

Are you talking about off-Wikipedia activities, or keeping a "clean talk page"?

If the latter, I have reconstructed what your talk page would look like it if you had not deleted the various comments. Just message me if you would like to add the link.

Good luck with your bid for admin status; I would certainly watch it with interest.

The first question I would pose would be: Which if any of our policies and guidelines do you think need modifying and how? Alice.S 12:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
  Click there to open your card! → → → Dearest Perspicacite, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow  and  Phoenix-wiki  for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.  Lara  ❤  Love  19:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by  The Random Editor 's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel 's RFA thanks.

Marcus Trescothick
Thanks for the support, if you ever need help with Angolan Civil War let me know! Military History is my thing. SGGH speak! 21:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Logical punctuation
Manual_of_Style Tony   (talk)  12:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My grandstanding; pros and cons
I dunno... I guess I can see your point here, but I rather enjoy grandstanding. One thing that still remains unclear to me though is why you felt a need to delete Penwhale's comment, which expressed a rather high level of annoyance with my posts. Perspicacite 12:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You were in a hole and still digging. I took the spade away.  Guy (Help!) 12:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I like my spade. What are you doing with Alice.S??? Dont you go giving her ideas! I finally found someone so obsessed with me they feel a need to create an identical, duplicate copy of my archive. I love it. Perspicacite 12:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not MySpace. The encyclopaedia is thataway → Guy (Help!) 12:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Pssh first you take my spade and now you want my haters. Will nothing satisfy you?!? Perspicacite 12:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I am an evil rouge admin.  I thought this was common knowledge?  Guy (Help!) 12:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * On a more serious note, I would remind you the last time you tried to have me banned CBDunkerson came very close to, if not succeeding in, pwning you in Arbcom. Perspicacite 12:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Any time you want to stop trolling my talk page is fine by me. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Neal Blair requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Caknuck 02:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My grandstanding; pros and cons
(copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Perspicacite/Archive&oldid=170858006#My_grandstanding.3B_pros_and_cons)

I dunno... I guess I can see your point here, but I rather enjoy grandstanding. One thing that still remains unclear to me though is why you felt a need to delete Penwhale's comment, which expressed a rather high level of annoyance with my posts. Perspicacite 12:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You were in a hole and still digging. I took the spade away.  Guy (Help!) 12:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I like my spade. What are you doing with Alice.S??? Dont you go giving her ideas! I finally found someone so obsessed with me they feel a need to create an identical, duplicate copy of my archive. I love it. Perspicacite 12:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not MySpace. The encyclopaedia is thataway → Guy (Help!) 12:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Pssh first you take my spade and now you want my haters. Will nothing satisfy you?!? Perspicacite 12:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I am an evil rouge admin.  I thought this was common knowledge?  Guy (Help!) 12:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * On a more serious note, I would remind you the last time you tried to have me banned CBDunkerson came very close to, if not succeeding in, pwning you in Arbcom. Perspicacite 12:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Any time you want to stop trolling my talk page is fine by me. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Points of information: While I am here, may I formally ask you to move this whole sub-section to your talk page (and then, perhaps, delete it) so that I can add it to my "imperfect mirror"?
 * 1) I am becoming a bit obsessed with protecting our project from those who are not simple vandals but misuse their intelligence and education to drive away and corrupt good contributions - if that doesn't sound too pompous.
 * 2) As of now, my user space page, is not an "identical, duplicate copy of (your) archive". It currently has 101 sections (not including this one - which never appeared on your talk page, and it also excludes the four opening sections {which are not relevant to your original allegations of Wikistalking}) whereas your own (mysteriously?) only has 95 (again, excluding this one). Additionally, there will always be a certain time lag.
 * 3) My fond hope is that, when your civility improves and your destructive reverts and edit warring ceases, we will be able to forgo sanctions and ArbComs and the like and I can stop maintaining it as possible future evidence and concentrate on improving articles.

PS: I must say that you both give every indication of being better sports than I imagined "heavyweight class" Wikipedians would be. Alice.S 00:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Angolan Civil War
Hi, I saw you removed the infobox image on Angolan Civil War. While you are correct in that the tank is Croatian, the picture is of combat in the Angolan Civil War. Cuba bought many tanks from Eastern Europe which it used in the 70s and 80s when it invaded Angola. Would you mind restoring it? If there is any question as to the accuracy of its placement, see the Spanish Wikipedia article - they also use it in the infobox there. Jose João 06:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed it because it is of a Croatian T-55 at Barbara Range, an SFOR drive-around-and-blow-stuff-up area near Glamoč, in Bosnia. There is no apparent connection between that picture and the Angolan Civil War.   --Dynaflow   babble  06:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? How do you know the tank was in Glamoc? I added it based on what I found at the Spanish Wikipedia. Jose João 06:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The winter-weight, rather un-Cuban-looking uniforms and the residual snow at higher elevations on the hillsides tipped me off, and the summary on the image page (Image:HVO Army T-55 Glamoc firing MG.jpg) confirmed it. I've also gone and removed the images from es.wikipedia.   --Dynaflow   babble  06:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahaha thanks. Jose João 07:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been looking into another, related article at es.wiki (Guerra de la frontera de Sudáfrica), and I've found more of the same pattern of semi-random image choices. The picture in the infobox is of a Eurocopter belonging to the (post-reunification) governement of Hong Kong, there's a picture of a Vektor Y3 automatic grenade launcher that I'm not sure had even been invented at the time of the border war, the illustration of a MiG-23 has it with Polish markings, the image of the UN peacekeeper is from the Bosnian War, and the group picture of UN personnel is of Czech members of the United Nations Guards Contingent in Iraq.  I would remove the images from the article myself, but my Spanish isn't good enough to adequately explain what I'm doing, and I'd likely be reverted as a petty vandal.  I'm assuming, based on your bringing things from es.wiki to en.wiki, that you know Spanish.  If so, would it be possible for you to do the removal and tell the es.wiki people why it needed to be done?  I just don't trust Babelfish enough for that kind of translation.  Thanks.   --Dynaflow   babble  21:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Barings Bank and Barings Bank collapse
Barings Bank collapse looks to be a split from Barings Bank. Given that the main bank article really isn't that long, I don't think it needed to be split out, and redirecting your collapse article to the Barings Bank section would be preferable. However, before I go do anything, I wanted to ask you why you split the collapse information out to a separate article. thanks! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done
Good call on this, I was gonna remove it myself. LOL what a load of rubbish tho, I love how he thought that could put something in the article that he's basically made up, with no mention of evidence! Ryan4314 (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Joseph McCarthy
Sorry to undo much of your work; I'll explain my reasons here:

If you think I've left out any important changes you made, and if you think the "cleanup" tag is still warranted, I (and other editors) will be happy to discuss this with you on the article's Talk page.
 * Your major change was to put references into a single line of text. Of course this makes no difference to the reader's view of the article, but as an editor, I much prefer references that are broken up into separate lines. I find that this makes it vastly easier to read the text of an article while working on an edit. As a general rule, I think it would be wise to ask in the talk page of an article before putting the time and effort into making an article-wide formatting change like this. Doing so would help to avoid wasting your own time and effort.
 * I've kept some of your non-formatting edits, but with others I disagree with your changed wording, and I've RV'd those. For example: His tactics, bullying opponents and accusing large numbers of federal government employees of Communist party-membership and Soviet loyalty, led the United States Senate to censure him. This wording is problematic in several places. "Bullying" in this context is quite vague, with no clear meaning. McCarthy didn't so much "accuse large numbers of federal employees", but rather "made unsubstantiated claims that there were large numbers of Communists in government." He made many specific accusations, but more notable were his generalized claims of infiltration. It's true that McCarthy's methods led the Senate to censure him, but the earlier wording, "his tactics led to his being discredited and censured by the United States Senate." is more complete and therefor more correct.
 * You shortened the introduction section some. Personally, I'm inclined to prefer minimal introductions, as longer intros just repeat material that's in the main article. However, other editors have pointed out to me that WP guidelines call for an intro section that's a few paragraphs long on an article of this length. So after some discussion I've accepted that view.
 * The "popular culture"/"trivia" section has been discussed by the active editors on the article, and the consensus was that it's a valid addition to the article, and that the tag isn't called for.
 * In some cases, you've changed wording with--to my eye--neither negative nor positive effect. I've left some of these edits out of the current version simply because that was the easier path.

RedSpruce (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Charles John Hodgson
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Charles John Hodgson, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Charles John Hodgson seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Charles John Hodgson, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ambassadors
Contrary to your assertion, there's nothing that covers this in WP:NOTE or WP:BIO. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  22:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Macmillan argues that all ambassadors are inherently notable under WP:BIO, as they qualify as politicians who have held international office. But is that what is meant by "held international office"? I think of the latter as meaning former officials of the United Nations or League of Nations. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  13:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh... I dont know. There may be no established consensus on this. Jose João (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Charles John Hodgson
Charles John Hodgson, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Charles John Hodgson satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Charles John Hodgson and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Charles John Hodgson during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Avruch Talk 00:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sergey Kryukov
Sergey Kryukov, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Sergey Kryukov satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Sergey Kryukov and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Sergey Kryukov during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Avruch Talk 00:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request
So why have not you blocked her as she reverted several more times than I did? Jose João (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that blocking is not for punishment, it is to stop the revert war. You may notice that the current version is yours. Had Alice S reverted it I would not hesitate to block this editor as well. I understand it may be boring to waste long time on discussion each and every single word, but as you may have noticed you wasted much more resource in reverting each other. It is not only betwen you two; it creates dificulties for other people to edit this article. I strongly suggest you to use various dispute resolution processess, starting from WP:THIRD, because tug-of-revert-war never made anybody a winner. `'Míkka>t 18:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

passive voice
I've been reading some of your comments to Alice.S at Talk:Rhodesia and thought I'd bring your attention to Logrolling, which is dripping with passive voice and might be a nice article for you to cleanup. BTW, excellent speakers will use passive voice for very particular uses. An example is Ronald Reagan's great claim that, "Mistakes were made." Here the basic idea is to exclude the subject form a sentence, and passive voice allows that. Pdbailey (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, my argument for passive voice is just a simple counter point to the claim that it's never a good idea. In almost every case in an encyclopedia it's just plain less clear. I pointed yo to the logrolling article because I don't have it in me to fix the article, but i thought you might derive some pleasure from doing so. Pdbailey (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fork substitution
I draw your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rhodesia&oldid=175026836#More_irrational_reverts and I seek your acquiescence in the edit proposed.

You may also wish to comment here, if you choose: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alice.S&oldid=175027524#Edit_war Alice.S 10:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Mugabe
Hi. I didn't recognise your signature. Seems as though you changed it and was surprised to see it was you that left me a comment.

I did hum and hah whether or not to leave that statement there but though if an adequate citation or two could be found then it could stand. Thinking about it again I agree with your decision to remove it. Mangwanani (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

History of Zimbabwe
I was wondering why you reverted all the edits I made. As you know I spent much time several months ago building up this article. I was merely trying to improve it. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Three reasons:


 * Inconsistent spelling style
 * Unnecessary addition of section titles
 * There is a separate article for Zimbabwe's economic history

I was trying to standardize the spellings with US type. I am quite amenable to use the variant used in Zimbabwe – presumably the British English style.

If you look at many history articles you will see many sub sections - they make it easier for the user to navigate the article. See History of France German Empire

As far as the economic history goes - it does have a separate page. However in the same way that a small section for history is put on the main Zimbabwe page similarly a small economic section should be put here. One cannot understand Zimbabwe’s history since 1980 unless one has a notion of its economic history. Had its economy performed better undoubtedly the politics would have been radically different. I was deliberately very brief.

I also added some photos that legitimately illustrate the article.

Could we not discuss these piece by piece. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 01:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Reversion in Kingdom of Kongo
I noted that all the changes I made on 15 December to this article were reverted. I wonder if you might explain why these were not acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beepsie (talk • contribs) 12:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to revert to the verison of 15 December, following my revisions, which included a substantial reorganization of the article, including moving sections around a bit, removing some redundancy in the Dutch section created by the remvoal of the previous section divisions, and expanding the 18th and 19th century section. I also added a number of references. All this was cancelled by your reversion. I studied the changes you had made, and see that my reorganization and some revisions I made at the sentence level undid some of our earlier work. I would be glad to discuss the differences on these points on the talk pages, but I also hope that we could retain the work I did on the 15 December.Beepsie (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just reverted the Kingdom of Kongo article to its 15 December version, just before your own reversion, and as described in my talk above. Please contact me if this action has undone revisions which you made that you feel have been undone.Beepsie (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

George Marshall
The language links were a screw-up by me -- I edited the article in an offline editor that didn't handle the Unicode correctly. Thank you for catching that. Also, again I've removed the redlinked image.

However, the names for the references I don't think were confiusing at all -- they were based on the author of the article whenever possible. Using 'a', 'b', etc. gives no contextual information. Although, since none of the references are currently used twice, probably removing all the names on them would be best, but when a reference is re-used, a descriptive name, such as the author of the piece, is preferable to a sequential letter. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Kingdom of Kongo
No need to paste a large chunk of text to the articles talk, just use a wiki link.--Hu12 (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop text dumping, please--Hu12 (talk) 07:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I have responded to your statements on my talk pageBeepsie (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Janvier Kanyamashure
A tag has been placed on Janvier Kanyamashure requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for@ what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. SaveThePoint (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Actually, if you look at Notability_(people), you can see that ambassadors are not considered automatically notable. I quote, "Simply being an ambassador does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons aside from his/her diplomatic career." I would consider the article I tagged to be a CSD. SaveThePoint (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Janvier Kanyamashure
I have nominated Janvier Kanyamashure, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Janvier Kanyamashure. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. SaveThePoint (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreaciate the heads up on the ambassador deletion discussion. It is ridiculous to think that the Rwandan ambassador to Burundi is considered non-notable! I understand that so many of us editors on Wikipedia are from the West, but do we have to prove our systematic bias by trying to delete people so obviously important to African country's foreign relations? Keep up the good work and keep fighting the good fight. --Thomas.macmillan (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is late 2007. I provided a source showing he was ambassador since May or shortly before that, so he can't be said to have been ambassador since late 2007. I oppose cite web because it's clumsy and unnecessarily complicates editing; I don't change it when other people use it, but I also expect people not to change my cites to cite web style, as policy says that the different preferences of authors regarding its use should be respected. Everyking (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no need for it to be consistent throughout the article; it's not visible to the reader. I don't think the exact date can be found on the net. Everyking (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Canada Foreign relations
It's great that you're "being bold", but did you have to drop so much information from the nav box when you made the changes? I don't like the new layout as much. Kevlar67 (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree about the "regional" articles (Carribean and Latin America). Canada's ties with most of these states as individuals is not notable.  However, dealing with them as group allows for a more substantive article.  Besdies, countries often deal with each other as part of larger groups, and not always bilaterally.  Specifically I'm thinking of the Canada Central American Free Trade Agreement where Canada has chosen to deal with 4 Central American countries at the same time, or CARIBCAN where Canada deals with the Carribean Community.  See what I mean? Kevlar67 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Category mistake
My apologies, I did not see the other category.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Angolan ambassadors
I am notyet an administrator, but I did nominate the category in question for speedy deletion, so it will hopefully be taken care of soon. Also, I just wanted to give you a suggestion. I have worked hard to categorize African events by years (see Category:Years in Angola. I noticed you created a series of articles on Angola by decade, so I was thinking that perhaps you could subset them into individual years (such as 2007 in Sierra Leone)? You could expand them by including sports results as well as the political already included. What do you think?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kulaxingu Kambamjiji
I have nominated Kulaxingu Kambamjiji, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Kulaxingu Kambamjiji. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Alloranleon (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
It takes 2 to edit war and given your long history of revert warring on article talk pages and your failure to discuss any changes, I have blocked you for 24 hours. Spartaz Humbug! 10:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I should have contacted another user and asked for an intervention, so fine. At least this has been applied across the board. Jose João (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I should have pointed out the unblock template should you wish to appeal the block. Spartaz Humbug! 12:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivoire diplomats
I do think it is a useful category. It could be populated by Côte d'Ivoire foreign ministers.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hey there, Are you Angolan or of Angolan ancestry? I am impressed by the article creation you have done over the past months, specifically towards Angola.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just cos


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

New templates and categories
Hi there Perspicacite,

I noticed you created a stub template and category without first consulting the stub-sorting wikiproject. Generally, templates can be created as needed without proposal but there should to be at least 60 articles for a template to have its own category. Do you think you can find 60 articles to link to Zimbabwe-hist-stub or Nigeria-hist-stub? I don't think it is possible judging by the number of historical articles relating to these countries. Anyways, the categories are also improperly named, see as an example on proper naming and formation. I am going to bring these categories to the discoveries discussion. Feel free to add your thoughts there.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * With your redirects (which I am not sure if they are the right way to go about expanding informations on decades by country), the Zimbabwe template is not sufficiently large enough to need its own category, so I am going to suggest upmerging them back into . Personally, I think each country should have its own article, I.E. 1993 in Zimbabwe as a subset of 1990s in Zimbabwe. Also, don't forget that more than political events happened in these countries during the decades you are writing about, including events like sporting events, natural disasters etc.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge of Cuba in Angola
Hi, I have completed the merge as per the discussion, can you comment/vote on it so that we can wrap it up? — Deon Steyn (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tunisia
Regarding the recent changes to History of Tunisia, a few did improve the article if properly followed up. Thank you for your interest.

Elfelix (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)