User talk:Elahrairah/Archive 4

Mail
--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 09:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

microbiology
hello there! i was wondering if you had any info about the project. i've added a few articles recently and wanted some more work, so if you have any hints about how to approach the project let me know! cheers FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You're doing really well with the sheer number of articles you're creating, and the sources you're using look good. Try adding more detail to the article to pad them out a bit, rather than just going for numbers created. Generally though, keep up the good work! Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 13:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Do you know if the project has any backlog with regards to article creation? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Advice
Ok Mark, we've been here before, and since we last spoke you have come close to blocks because of the way you edit. So I'm just going to ask you as nicely as I can - please do not reintroduce the celebration section on the Kevin-Prince Boateng article. I trust that you'll just leave it, as you wisely chose to do last time. If you don't I'll be forced to take this to a noticeboard, and given your recent history of discussions being raised about you, I suspect that would result in a block. Please, please, please read WP:OR and implement it into your editing. Regards Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 16:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have read WP:OR and implemented it. What I previously introduced which as you are correct from you reversion of my "good faith" edit and edit summary (You cannot make that inference. that is original research), it was WP:OR (original research):


 * Boateng tends to celebrate with a mortal (Leap of death) a acrobatic backflip, this is similar to that of Nani, Obafemi Martins and Lomana LuaLua.


 * Now the information provided is by no way WP:OR (original research) but a true and simple wording of a fact that can be proved and accessed from Kevin-Prince Boateng's goals from football matches and also videos of Kevin-Prince Boateng freely available on the web:


 * Celebration
 * "Boateng celebrates with an acrobatic backflip."


 * (Source: see here. Further sources available from Kevin-Prince Boateng's football matches and videos of Kevin-Prince Boateng scoring goals.)


 * The revision is short with five (5) words, plain fact, and no original research (WP:OR) in it what so ever. In the same way a "Style of play" and "association football positions" are part of association football player's, the "Goal celebration" is also part of association football and a association football player that is the reason why the "Good article" of Nani has a "Celebration" section following the "Style of play" section. Otherwise if it was not appropriate and useful information to association football and a association football player articles the "Celebration" section would be removed but the "Celebration" section in the Wikipedia "Good article" of Nani is not removed because "Goal celebration" is part of association football and association football player's in the same way as a association football player's "Style of play" and "association football positions". I do not see anybody else complaining about a "Goal celebration" section in the same as "Style of play" and "association football positions" section. When the information written down is sourced, true (shown in many freely available videos on the web), and with the un-original research of five (5) simple words:


 * "Boateng celebrates with an acrobatic backflip."


 * This is the five (5) words I place in the section "Celebration" in the article Kevin-Prince Boateng because there is no Wikipedia rule that says this information cannot be placed into the Kevin-Prince Boateng article, it does look like the only person against "Goal celebration" section is you Basalisk. I believe I'am correct about the "Goal celebration" section. You could take this to a noticeboard and also WikiProject:Football to see whether I'am wrong about the "Goal celebration" section. My best Regards MarkMysoe (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you learned English, Mark, but let me fill you in on something - "mortal" is not a translation of "leap of death". This is your own interpretation of a completely different word (original research). This really is simple Mark, if the source says "back flip", say "back flip", not "leap of death" or whatever else you call it in your own little world. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 18:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * A warning


 * Your incapacity to learn the basic points of WP:OVERLINK, and the subsequent requirement for others to go around after you cleaning up, is annoying. That I can live with.


 * However, your deceitful tendency to introduce original research into articles under the guise of phoney citations, obscured by fake and misleading edit summaries, is damaging the encyclopaedia. For the final time, you cannot add your own personal reflection or knowledge to wikipedia articles. MarkMysoe is not a reliable source.


 * I'm going to make this simple. The next time you try something like this (in particular I'm referring to your fanboy commentary about the 4-2-3-1 system sourced to a single graphic), I'm going to a noticeboard, with diffs from multiple discussions from across the project about the disruption you've caused in a multitude of areas that I don't routinely monitor and which you try to hide by blanking your talk page, and ask for you to be blocked.


 * You can't do this any more. This isn't your own personal magazine; a lot of people put a lot of effort into making this project useful and it isn't fair of you to degrade it this way. Consider this your final warning.


 * Regards. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 22:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The "4-2-3-1 system" was an introduced with an explanatory paragraph which was sourced with a image and not text in it self. The paragraph borrowed text from other facts and sources.


 * I do not "blank" my talk page - I tend to keep my talk page short and organized by archiving. This is not a crime. I have brought this discussion to User talk:Basalisk because it is a continuation of a topic that was started previously. The "4-2-3-1 system" was included at the same time of the previous discussion you started with me. I don't know why you did not notice me of the "4-2-3-1 system" then, but have chosen this present time to note me. Since you left me the message above your last message, I have not added/introduced information with original resource to any articles. I have taken your "advice" from the last message you left me. Please remember this. My best regards. MarkMysoe (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention it then because I didn't notice it then; it's a long article, and it's not my dedicated job to follow you around monitoring your edits. I only noticed tonight as I was trying to de-lice the article of overlinking.
 * "Borrowed text from other facts and sources"? Presumably that you couldn't be bothered to cite? Are you serious? Bollocks, you just made it up and chucked in the article, as usual. Stop doing that.
 * Finally, you do selectively blank your talk page to try to hide your troublesome history, usually with the misleading edit summary "archive", and then not actually archive the text (another example of you lying via edit summaries). Contrast this with the barnstar you've left on your talkpage since June and your claim to be committed to keep your talk page "short and organised" starts to seem far-fetched. Archiving is great, but for as long as you do it selectively and blank bad feedback permanently, I reserve the right to be critical of the way you handle your talk page, and I image others will be too. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 00:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

RfA
I have co-nommed; go ahead, accept and transclude. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I just went and did the transclusion myself, but just noticed I forgot to get him to "accept" first.. Basalisk just need to do that when he catches this message.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks. Here we go... Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 20:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol. I supported without him accepting the nom XD [By the way, I've seen you a lot, Basalisk, even when we have never talked]. Good luck. — <font color="#333333">ΛΧΣ <font color="#336699">21™ 20:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 20:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

RfA
Hello Basalisk, and good luck tomorrow when your RfA will be closed! I moved my neutral to support after examination of the oppose arguments. I feel they are all wrong and that you definetely deserve adminship. Hopefully the Bureaucrats will recognize this when closing your RfA and close as accept. Just wanted to say you really deserve this. Again, good luck! Vacation nine 02:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations
I've closed your RfA as successful. Congratulations, and good luck with your new tools!  Maxim (talk)  22:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Congrats!!!
Congratulations on your successful request for adminship! You deserve the mop and will do great holding the tools! Vacation nine 22:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats!--v/r - TP 22:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Very many congratulations. I wanted to be the first to say so, but had to briefly logout. Well done. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony Bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 22:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats! What a week for RfA! Go   Phightins  !  22:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats! :D Thine Antique Pen (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats to you! Automatic  Strikeout  00:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It was a tough slog, running the gauntlet, but the way you handled yourself proved Anthony and I right, that you are ready and will be an asset to Wikipedia with the tools. While the concerns raised are valid, and you should be careful and move forward slowly, you bring some excellent skils and experience that more than offset any shortcoming.  I`m glad to see that the community,as a whole, could express those concerns while still having the wisdom to grant you the tools.  If you have questions, feel free to ask Anthony or I, anytime.  Well done.  Pharmboy (alt. of Dennis Brown) 01:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yay! Congrats!  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 02:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well deserved. Congo!  TheSpecialUser TSU 03:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your support. I'm extremely happy to have passed; honestly with just a day left I wasn't optimistic. Without wanting to sound too political, I'm hopeful that we've managed to set some sort of precedent; that it's not impossible for a candidate with less than 10,000 edits, and with some flaws, to pass RfA if they can show they're not a liability. As GP said above, I think it's been a great two weeks for RfA. Perhaps there is hope for this process after all.


 * Thanks once again to all of you who supported me. For those who opposed and might be reading, I thank you for your constructive attitude and your feedback. I can honestly say that, whilst this week has been very stressful, I never felt attacked or over-criticised. I know I've still got a long way to go and a lot to learn; I promise to tread carefully. In particular, thanks to Dennis and Anthony, who showed great courage and faith in nominating me despite my relative inexperience and the aggressive nature of RfA today. To everyone - let me know if I'm ballsing anything up. I'm more open to suggestions now than I've ever been. Regards Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 03:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well said. I hope the precedent will live on and I do agree that RfA is VERY agressive these days. Vacation nine 03:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good job. Came here to thank you for declining the speedy on John Butler (footballer born 1937); I was just about to decline it myself, since I wholly agree that this guy's potentially important.  Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See my recent contributions; I saw your notice on his talk page because I was planning to leave the same kind of message. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me offer my congratulations as well. It's well deserved.— cyberpower <sup style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Chat<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online 16:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! All the best,  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 04:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

P Jainulabdeen
Thanks for declining the speedy. As I have no way to look at previously deleted articles I had no way of telling if the submitted content was substantially different from the original one. So we'll let the AfD run its course. § FreeRangeFrog 21:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, I know how annoying it is to make this call when you can't see the original version. You made the right call, but having compared the versions I think it's best to let the AfD run its course. I'll keep an eye. Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 21:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Hello chaps (or ladies, as you may be); congratulations on passing RfA. It's been a while since a significant "tranche" of editors all passed RfA at around the same time, and so since we all passed within about a week of each other, I thought it would be good to introduce myself and say hi, especially as I don't think I've seen any of you around before. So...

Hi, I'm Basalisk. I work mainly at CSD. I'm pretty inexperienced as admins go, but let me know if you need a hand with anything. I look forward to working with you all! Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 21:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Basalisk. I'm glad yours ended up successful as well, I was watching yours running concurrently to mine and saw it was a close call at times. Anyways, let me know if there's anything I can do for you as well. (I tend to spend more time around AFD and ANI myself.) Thanks! Sergecross73   msg me   21:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it congratulations or condolences? I joked once that I wasn't an admin yet because I hadn't sold my soul and first born.  Drmies responded I didn't have a soul. It got me thinking that admins were probably soulless to begin with.  So, I'm honored to be in good company with other soulless, tormented, newly minted admins. As soon as Harrias passes, I guess we will be the gang of six.
 * I'm still on a semi-holiday. So, it is going to take me a bit to get caught up and read about all my new "powers".  The one thing that did give me a scare is the block option now associated with names on watchlists.  I'm going to hit that by mistake and scare the beejebus out of me. Bgwhite (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. They just take you to the block form for the associated user. The really scary thing is that some block links don't go where you would think that they would. Recently, however, the devs have added a big "" message. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Swedwatch
Thanks for your support for Swedwatch. Watti Renew (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Why
Did you delete this redirect? It was not an article and was not eligible for deletion under G4. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. It would appear that this deletion discussion establishes clear consensus that the article redirect is inappropriate, as the closing statement makes clear, and that the title itself is POV. The page was deleted as a redirect as a result of this discussion, and a redirect was clearly rejected as an option, so I think it's entirely appropriate for the same redirect to be deleted now per G4. Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 23:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Article for Creation
Hi,

would you re-write this article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Justin_P._Wayoro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbigjustin (talk • contribs) 10:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

ani
You closed too quickly ;) I went and did an investigation and they are linked, so I tagged them as being sockpuppets.  This helps us in future investigations, since if he comes back next week, the original account is too old the check via CU (90 days) but the new account could be checked against this one.  When there is a real possibility of socking, it should be dropped at SPI, so we have an archive, or investigated and tagged, so there is at least a link.  I also created the category for the master as well.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was going to drop you a line to say thanks for keeping an eye on me recently. I guess I'm always a bit scared of tagging accounts as puppets based on nothing but my own judgement (though this one was obvious). Generally speaking, how am I doing? Any reason I need a crack round the ear? Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 20:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Haven't looked much yet, was just filling you in. On socking, get a clerk in the loop until you are up to speed.  Normally, you wouldn't tag at all, and just file an spi, look at the one I filed.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
For your kindness. Please have some Turkish tea. Best. --E4024 (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Any time. I do love tea, after all... Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 22:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Turkish Tea Culture is something more than simple tea. (Please watch the video when you have time; it begins in Turkish but continues in English.) Thanks again. --E4024 (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding my "The Young Brothers" article.
Respectfully, Basalisk,

I am aware that my section ("Wikipedia Notability - Music") did not belong in my article. I posted it, knowing that you would "SEE IT" & expected you to correct it. I was just trying to bring your attention to the fact, that my The Young Brothers article, satisfies the requirements demanded of Wikipedia for NOTABILITY! Please see below, & kindly remove the "Deletion Nomination Flag" from my article.

The Young Brothers meet Wikipedia's "NOTABILITY" Requirements, based on the following criteria, for both (A). "musicians & ensembles", as well as (B)."composers and lyricists". (A). Criteria for musicians and ensembles: (2) "As co-writers, will have a single "Redeck Paradise" off Kid Rock's Rebel Soul album on America's national music charts", soon after it's scheduled release by Kid Rock, as a single come Spring of 2013. (B). Criteria for composers and lyricists: (1) "Having credit for co-writing both lyrics & music for a notable composition".) []) by the "CLEARLY MENTIONED CREDIT GIVEN THEM, AS A BAND", for co-writing (with Kid Rock) a notable composition, by "Billboard Magazine", in their November Issue, next to #6. "Redneck Paradise", stating, "Teaming with The Young Brothers, Rock digs into a good-time, down-home country lope to bring us a Garden of Eden that allows chewing tobacco."[] As well as having co-writing credits for "Redneck Paradise" on Kid Rock's Rebel Soul album.

Again, Most Respectfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tybllc (talk • contribs) 19:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it isn't "your" article. You don't own it anymore than anyone else does. Secondly, I have already explained the problems with this argument in the deletion discussion. Thirdly, the deletion notice will not be removed until the deletion discussion is over (they last 7 days). I've said all I need to. Please don't post about this issue again on my talk page, anything you want to say can be said on the article talk page or the deletion discussion (but please stop flooding it with walls of text). Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 19:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I do appologise, as I am new to Wiki, & just familiarizing myself with it's policies. I will find the validation you seek, in hopes that you will approve "THE/NOT MY" article!...lol Thank you kindly for your patience, & assistance! Tybllc (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)tybllcTybllc (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC) :)

SPI clerk
Hi! If you are still interested, I can take you on as a trainee SPI clerk. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to help out. Thanks for taking me on! Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 22:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright then! You should read the instructions for administrators, instructions for clerks, sock puppetry policy (make note of the legitimate versus illegitimate uses of sockpuppets), WMF privacy policy, and the checkuser policy. We generally coordinate work via the IRC channel, and, although it isn't critical, it can be a big help when explaining things. WP:SPI lists the open cases so you can find them, and User:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js is a helpful little script you might want to add to your js page to assist with clerking cases. Additionally, you may find that adding  to your js page to mark blocked users is helpful in determining which sockpuppets have been blocked already. Finally, I've added your name to the clerk list. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

apologies
I really apologise for that.Sorry for my word (coward) but he blamed me for my english first here and here.Poisoned others against me here.I will provide the required differences at sockpuppetry investigation too and please read the whole comment added by me.there ---zeeyanketu  talk to me 11:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need to apologise to me, but please, don't tell tales. The second link you posted showed that he withdrew his comment about your language skills, and the second comment was accurate - your language was rude. I think it's best that you just take a deep breath and accept that you're not going to get your own way in this dispute. Not every argument can go your way; sometimes you just have to walk away. It's not about winning and losing. Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 11:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

CSD
Several editors disagree with your decision that this is not a candidate for speedy deletion Articles for deletion/I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (UK series 13)‎. Care to review? It is quite clearly a test edit. Leaky Caldron  23:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there, thanks for dropping me a line. Perhaps common sense could prevail here, but I have a piece of advice for you. Generally it's poor practice to gut an article (even if its justified) when it's going through a deletion discussion. If the article is so crappy to begin with then let contributors judge it on its original content. I'll comment further in the AfD. Regards Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  <font                      color="green">inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 10:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There were a dozen BLP violations in that spoof article and per WP:GRAPEVINE there is an absolute zero tolerance obligation to remove it. Claiming in one of our articles that x, y or z living person is scheduled to appear, perform or engage in an activity which is clearly a false statement is an obvious BLP violation. You should have speedy deleted when it was first tagged. You were wrong not to do so. Because another editor altered my original speedy tag to an ordinary delete tag I was fully within my rights (and obligation) to remove the false, unsourced, contentious BLP infringing content immediately per policies WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Leaky  Caldron  11:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I shouldn't have deleted it when it was first tagged, because you tagged it as vandalism, which it was not. Before coming here to my talk page preaching about what I was wrong or not wrong to do, take a look at your own practises - characterising edits as vandalism when they clearly are not is certainly bad practice. Being full of unsourced information is not a criteria for speedy deletion (if it were, the backlog would be 250,000), and since you edited the article before I did, you are at least as at fault for not removing it as I am. CSD is not for generally rubbish articles; the article made a reasonable claim of importance for the subject, and no research should be necessary to verify a CSD tag, which is why I suggested AfD instead. Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 12:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It concerns me that any editor, much less an admin working in an area where BLP violations should be trapped and dealt with promptly, doesn't appreciate the importance of the WP:BLP policy. Before you make any more shoot from the hip claims about my behaviour, please read the 2 paragraph lead and associated links in WP:BLP. That is why I removed the violating material. You were wrong to tell me that I should not have removed it. I removed all BLP violating material and left the only piece that wasn't. Earlier, I tagged it as G2 or G3. You eventually deleted it as G3. My G2/G3 tag was correct, multiple tags are allowed. In any event, the removal of BLP violations has absolute primacy. If you insist on making something out of this with further uncivil accusations about my "preaching", feel free. I see from your recent RFA that you have a past record for issues relating to temperament but had claimed to have learned a lot in the last 7 months. Maybe you need to learn a bit more and keep that temper in check. Humility is a virtue - for all of us. Above all, don't tell good faith editors that they are wrong to remove more than a dozen BLP violations for an article. Leaky  Caldron  12:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You tagged it as G2 vandalism and G3 test, it was deleted as G3 hoax. Don't try to blur the lines. Jeez, I was trying to do you a favour. Next time I'll just let the AfD run. I only made my initial comment because I myself (also an experienced new page patroller) have been criticised in the past for doing exactly what you did. You can't use BLP as carte blanche to torch an article you don't like, especially when the material in question isn't contentious. The point is that none of this is relevant because being full of BLP violations still isn't a criteria for speedy deletion. Had there been any credibility to the claims in the article, it wouldn't even have been a candidate for G3. I don't know what your beef is here. You got your way, what more do you want? You can't show up to another experienced user's talk page telling them what they should and should not do and how wrong they were about something and expect a smiley response. If you play fast and loose with WP:CIVL then expect others to respond in kind. If you want to respond and have the last word, that's fine, I'll read it, but I'm done here. Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 13:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * My response is nothing to do with incorrect tagging, your initial failure to SD or your subsequent correct action to do so. You stated, "... but I have a piece of advice for you. Generally it's poor practice to gut an article (even if its justified) when it's going through a deletion discussion." I maintain that your advice is incorrect because WP:BLP.. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." plus this is equally clear: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag.  Wrong.  It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information....". Being contentious or not is irrelevant, I removed, aggressively, what was clearly unsourced and incorrect because it falsely associated real people to alleged activities which, being false, they might find contentious. I found your piece of advice, which you described as common sense, to be patronising but more importantly, inconsistent with BLP policy.  Leaky  Caldron  14:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Staffs TV
I do not think the "StaffsTV" page should have been deleted. Staffs TV is a well establish organisation, recognised by Staffordshire University and NaSTA. If YSTV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ystv have the right to have a page, so should Saffs TV. They are both student Media — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophinou12 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * YSTV has lots of reliable sources which confer notability. Please read those links. Anyway, you can't use the existence of one example of a type of article to argue for the existence of another. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 14:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Helping the Cause?
I'd like to get more involved in helping Wikipedia (so far I have only edited pages for grammar, flow, and information) and I was wondering what the requirements and priveledges of a rollback user are, or which extra right I would be able to use best to improve my track record and contributions to the project. Thanks!

Cor Ferrum (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Slàinte mhòr agad. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Falkland Islands
Hi,

I see you reverted my edit saying "the UN recognises the right to self determination as a universal right of all people. this is not simply a British "claim". even Argentina doesn't dispute this". Argentina does recognize the right to self-determination exists but it disputes the fact that it applies to the Falkland islanders. Please see the official Argentinian position here which states:

This is because the specificity of the Question of the Malvinas Islands lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the "disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity" of Argentina. (emphasis added)

Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel that's fairly consistent with my argument. Like I said, Argentina does not contest the concept of self determination for all; they simply argue that it's not relevant in this case. That's not the meaning you're trying to introduce into the sentence. Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 00:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The sentence as I edited it said:
 * ..The UK bases its position on continuous (...) and the claim that the islanders possess the "right to self determination, including their right to remain British if that is their wish"
 * It is indeed a British claim that the islanders possess this right since Argentina disputes this. The UK says they do, Argentina says they don't, that's why it is a claim. I'm not saying that the general concept of "self-determination" is a claim. How would you write this to make it clearer? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * With respect, I don't think the sentence needs re-writing to make it any "clearer". Regards. Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 00:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you go to the talk page you'll see that it does need clarification since that section of the article is currently not balanced. If we refer to the Argentinian position on this issue as a claim (as we do in the article already) we should also refer to the British position as a claim otherwise we are giving more weight to one position over the other (as the article currently does). Could I ask you to self-rv if you have no other grammar-related objections please? Or stop by the talk page to express your view on the matter? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I did go to the talk page, and discovered that it was only you who holds this opinion (and then edit warred to push it, and ironically accused everyone else of edit warring with you). Look, I'm not starting a dispute here, but I think it's fair to say that the majority disagree with you over this specific point, and it would probably be helpful to just leave it. No one can win every argument. Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 00:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Really? Did you see I had previously edited in a single word agreed with another editor and Wee edit warred to keep it out? Anyway, I explained to you why the edit is necessary, the current section needs a bit of balance and at least two other editors agree with me on this, so I'll be reverting your edit. If you have any other concerns, since I believe grammar is not an problem anymore, I'd really apreciate if you could stop by the talk page to discuss it further so the issue is not fragmented. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Slow edit warring is still edit warring, and I will still take you to WP:AN/EW. It's up to you. Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 18:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Basalisk if you would stop by the talk page to discuss this with the rest of the editors I would really apreciate it. Please state your thoughts over there so we can reach an agreement, this is not helpful for any of us or the article. My intention is not to edit war, this is the third different edit I make on that section (regarding the same issue) to try to find a common ground all editors can be comfortable with. I am not trying to forcibly introduce a single edit, rather to bring a bit of balance to the article in a way we can all agree on. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I will gladly discuss the issue at the talk page, on one condition - that you accept the possibility that consensus may be that no change is needed. Is that ok? Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 18:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * More than OK. Before we dive in an honest question: how do you define consensus? I usually call consensus to the agreement of a majority of editors after the issue has been thoroughly discussed and it is clear that a stale point has been reached. Is this acceptable? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

9TDT
Please see user talk:Altered Walter. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I received a message today about my article, but no specific information: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lauriebak/sandbox&oldid=527607404 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/SarahStierch

"December 2012

Hello Lauriebak, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here."

I found your name and this talk page at the top of my Sandbox 'History'... the article itself seems to have been deleted. I don't understand and would like to know how to get this page accepted. I was told (by DGG) that it was an important enough organization to include, was given some helpful specific information and I corrected that information. I referenced the paragraph about history (see below) although these references are now not there because this is an older version (you deleted the version that had the references).

"In the sixth century BCE, the Buddha affirmed that women and men had equal potential to achieve spiritual liberation. This affirmation represented a significant departure from then prevailing views defining women primarily in terms of their reproductive function and capacity for productive labor. The bhikkhuni sangha founded by Mahapajapati, the Buddha’s aunt and foster mother, may have been the first monastic order for nuns in history. Since its inception, Buddhism has acknowledged the equal spiritual potential of women and men. Despite this early egalitarian philosophy, unequal social structures still persist in most contemporary Buddhist cultures. Today, the bhikkhuni sangha survives in only three traditions: Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese. Buddhist institutional structures remain male dominated."

Or, are you concerned about the 'objectives" section, which comes off of the Sakyadhita website?

I'm trying hard to get this accepted, but with several reviewers and not enough information about corrections, it's a tough slough!

thanks and merry christmas, lauriebakLauriebak (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

reply to your notice
Hi,

I've left a reply to your notice on my talk page, with an additional inquiry. Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 13:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough
(Though I think we've just lost our last uninvolved admin.) Let it be noted that I was personally opposed to every one of those suggestions. But if you think that anything resembling a wheelwar is dying down here, then I defer to your judgment. — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 01:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your cool head. I'm not contesting that bad shit was done by admins today, I just don't think that stirring it up further will accomplish anything. It's over now; feelings have been hurt and block logs tarnished, but it's done and dusted and so it's probably best to leave it. Hope you understand. Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 01:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. If I'd posted that about 45 minutes earlier, I'd feel differently (that way we might've headed off wheelwar #2), but I agree with you that the dust is slowly settling. Though I hope my effort to find some way to avoid this type of thing in the future (the first thread I created) doesn't get buried in all teh dramahz. Anyways, yeah, admins did dumb stuff - time for them to all move on and get back to editing, just like y'all're always telling us non-admins to do when we get blocked and then unblocked. — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 01:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Basalisk here that the poll would had done nothing other than create more drama. I was about to hat it before Basalisk beat me to it by removing the section completely. KTC (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I said I had no objection to it being removed. Seemed the best way to demonstrate that my goal was to ease tension, not create more. My thread proved unnecessary, therefore I'm glad it was taken down. — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 01:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
<font face="Arial" size="2em"> — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 06:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Mark, I think you need to stop adding mentions of Akanland into articles. Akanland is a cultural region, but the way you're using it suggests that it is an official administrative region of Ghana, which it is not. You obviously have a passion for this and feel some deep connection to Akanland, but the edits you're making are introducing misrepresentations. I really think you should stop. Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 20:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Basalisk, I am so glad that you feel the same deep connection to Akanland as I do for Akanland. Akanland is similar to the Basque Country (greater region), with Akanland being a historic country of the Akans before colonization, then divided regions (Ashanti, Brong-Ahafo, Central, Eastern and Western Akan lands) within Ghana. Basalisk, I'am just being really scared and worried, because in Ghana things are not going well in Ghana, so if anything goes wrong in Ghana possibly soon, there is a high probability that Ghana could soon become a strife country. The Akans will have their historic Akanland to live in, if anything goes wrong in Ghana or Ghana falls into strife. Please understand me Basalisk. MarkMyso (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent issues
I know you may remember me. If so, good. Fist of all, happy new year! That said, I've been closely following your recent contributions and I am alarmed by several heated comments you have left to this user,. In two days, you have threatened him you'll block him for actions that cannot be considered disruptive. I won't say his comments aren't over the top; indeed they are, but not block worthy. What I am surprised the most, is the speed with which you act, and the directions it takes. My recommendation is to go slow and calmed; administrators are entitled to act with patience and to think what they do before doing anything. I am pretty sure that if you push the block button over him, such block may be reverted, in my opinion. I am in no way trying to scare you off; I am sure that yuo will use your best judgement. Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21  03:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Thanks for voicing your concern. I agree with you, nothing he has done has warranted a block, which is why he hasn't been blocked. However, I do believe his actions in both cases were childish, and served only to inflame an already difficult situation, which is why I advised him that he were to repeat such actions I would block him to stop him repeating them further. If in doing so I sounded authoritarian I apologise, to you and him (and I will link him to this). However, my original warning stands, as I really don't think he needs to be engaging in this kind of behaviour. He has plenty of other things to offer this project and doesn't need to spend his time on talk pages goading others.


 * Aside from that, you said you've been following my contribs. Any other advice? Regards Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 03:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your fast reply. I know that some of his actions have been childish; seems like this site has been turned upside down since December 28 and everyone has gone mad, childish and crazy. We've seen Drmies and Scottywong (two amazing admins) blocked, Malleus blocked, SandyGeorgia retired and back again breaking glasses about FAC, MathewTownsend (a fine contributor, who sadly seems to be a sock) indef blocked, Nikkimaria (a fine reference expert editor) blocked for edit warring (as well as other guy), and the least we need is another block. I wont do comparisons such as "if Malleus is unblocked and he told half the site to fuck off, then why Status..." and the like because they are childish, but my advice here is to solve things without pressing buttons (and I speak for all wikipedians, not for your eyes only). Regarding your contribs, I see that you focus on SPI and ANI, which is good, we don't have much people there (SPI). And well, my advice is primarily the reason why I landed here (and which eventually happened to me before): sometimes we come as too harsh and we don't notice it until someone tell us. — ΛΧΣ  21  03:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's funny you should say that, because honestly my driving motive behind all this is a firm belief that everyone needs to take a deep breath and walk away from this - all this afterburn from the Malleus affair, with underhand comments and cocky jibes from users all over the place, just isn't helping anyone. The message I was trying to convey to Status was that it's time for this to stop and for us to all go back to articles (or SPI in my case!). I don't care who's right and who's wrong, it's just time for everyone to take a bath and forget about it. Copypasting discussions from one user talk page to another just to continue the bad feeling is precisely the opposite of that. I didn't mean to single out Status, and I know lots of others have done worse recently, he's just the one who came to my attention. Anyway, I've apologised to him for my tone and made him aware of this discussion too, and I hope he understands. Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 03:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (I might as well reply here) I sort of understand where you're coming from, but to single me out (which is how it seems, it may not have been your intention, but it's how it came across to me). I understand that you just want all this drama to go away, but blocking me won't change any of that at all. I'd simply like that discussion in my archives. There's simply nothing wrong with that, yes, it's not productive, but it's not block worthy either. I retracted my comments from Malleus's talk, and you warned me about commenting there, an hour after I left no further comments. I left Sandy alone once she removed my comments (which she is indeed entitled to do). All I did was copy the conversation to my own talk. <font face="Arial" size="2em"> — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 03:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)