User talk:Aecis/Messages 253-264

re: Fourth Balkenende cabinet
I agree that we should pick a standard naming convention and stick to it. I'm inclined to say that "Netherlands cabinet [naam van premier] [eventueel volgnummer]." is the best convention, since this is the English Wikipedia after all, and this title is the clearest in my opinion. I see someone has already raised this on Talk:Cabinet of the Netherlands, which would be the best place to continue this discussion. JACO PLANE  &bull; 2007-02-13 19:50

Question 2
I know i am hammering you with questions but i think we need to put things into perspective. Now i had included two paragraphs here which were cited by verifiable, independent/third party, reliable sources. Approx 15 minutes later they are gone, washed! with the following edit summary "rv. Lets keep the history neutral please. Selective quotes used to demonise one community are not welcome". Hypocrisy i would say as the article is full of selective quotes. Not only that, the fact tag is also gone with no explanation. Could you please help? Thanks Aristovoul0s 19:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

extended repetition of a particular character
Thank you. Even having read the list again recently I somehow missed it. I'm still concerned at the spate of blocks. They really needed _some_ indications which rules they were afoul. Shenme 03:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais
Hello, An article that I created as a part of Wikiproject Cycling called Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais and linked to the Mount Tamalpais article, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais. Thank you, Bob in Las Vegas - uriel8   (talk)  09:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Rock music invitation
Hello WikiProject Alternative music member. WikiProject Alternative music, in my eyes, has proved to be successful "improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock", and improving their quality as well. One specific example I have witnessed is The Smashing Pumpkins article. The page has gone from a mediocre work, to GA status, to FA nomination. Only appropriate, as the Pumpkins are undeniably one of the most influential alternative rock bands on the 1990's and beyond. This is the stuff I wish to achieve with the somewhat recently ressurected WikiProject Rock music. I hope to also attract attention to rock music articles of all sorts, and hopefully change some to GA or FA status. I invite you to come join us, and not only be a member of alternative Wikipedians, but the rockin' ones as well. Rock on. -- Reaper  X  03:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Project for Pride in Living
After writing that huge article that was then denied for "blatant advertising", I came up with a new article for posting. May I email it to you to see if it meets qualifications? Project for Pride in Living 21:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC) thank you for your help and input. I have to leave work in 5 minutes. I don't work again until Wednesday so I will not be working on this site. Can you make sure it doesn't get automatically deleted until I come back? I will not be working on that as I attend school on Tuesdays and Thursdays. THANKS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Project for Pride in Living (talk • contribs)

Usernames
Should these usernames have been blocked on site? Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Haradinaj
Hi. The main source for most of the first section of the Haradinaj article is quoted in the text itself - two volumes of biographical interview. Print references are allowed by Wikipedia, I believe. I will try to find sources for some of the rest. Davu.leon 23:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

But I would have thought that many of them are obvious - UNMIK has constantly stated that Haradinaj is an essential contributor to the maintenance of peace and order in Kosovo. Many of the statements would seem to be self-evident once a single reference is given. I suggest that rather than providing a ref for every instance you have noted, I could find a few documents to cover them all. Would this be OK? Davu.leon 23:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And the books are not autobiography, they are biography, based on interviews with Ramush, but they are likely the only record for his time in Switzerland - however I don't see how these are contentious claims, and why they should be treated differently from any other biography. Until and unless a proper, researched biography is printed, they remain the best source of information on a man who, frankly, was utterly unknown pre-1999. Davu.leon 23:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note on the example you mentioned. The ambush in which his brother died was widely reported in Serb and Albanian media at the time, and the fact that his brother was re-buried in Kosovo after the war is documented fact: I've even been to his grave. I would contend that evidence of this nature would lend enough credence to his account to allow us to use it as a source, once I can find refs, of course. And just because you may find the image of his brother's death poetic doesn't make it untrue, unless of course there is some reason to doubt this account. Davu.leon 00:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, and I agree - getting proper sources is the business I'm in, after all. The main difference is, in the real world, I'm allowed to use original research. Damn Wikipedia regulations! ;) Davu.leon 00:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Konyali
Regarding a message you left at User talk:Konyali: don't bother discussing the edits with this user. This is a sockpuppet of known sockpuppeteer. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Burak18 and the page histories of Turkey national football team and Galatasaray S.K. for more information. The only way to deal with him is to Revert, block, ignore. A ecis Brievenbus 13:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, OK. Sorry about that; obviously I don't carry around in my head a record of every user who's ever created sockpuppets on Wikipedia, and I was trying to assume good faith. I'll bear this one in mind – Qxz 13:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, it was just a friendly notification, because this vandal will pop up again today. And tomorrow. And the day after tomorrow. This user will not change his ways, and any discussion with him is simply a waste of time. Time that could be better spent in other ways :) Anyway, thank you very much for reverting the edits. A  ecis Brievenbus 13:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Bloder
I suggest you make this block indefinite with vandalblock: over several days not one edit was legitimate. My user page notwithstanding, I doubt the user will shape up once the block expires. Daniel Case 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
I guess all editors have a niche and mine is WP:RFCN! Your recent additions to RFCN are very much appreciated and thanks for thinking to report here and not blocking on sight, I hope this helps.........
 * Just as a followup to the barnstar, good work in actually giving a reason when blocking a username Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)