User talk:Kurykh/Archive 1

Regarding Singapore Changi Airport table edits
Hello physicq210. I think you are aware of the political situation of the page, also of the pages concerning Singapore Airlines as well. I have tried to standardize the SQ destinations page before and have met with vicious opposition from certain SGpedians that seem to think that those pages are of their owning. However, with some perseverance, I somehow managed to standardize it. You might meet the same opposition with regard to the airport, but I am all for standardizing it. Just taking a moment here to warn you, in a way. I do agree that the table is such an eyesore. Elektrik Blue 82 05:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * PS, some further background: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive2 and you might find a version I done of the page in stanadard list format useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singapore_Changi_Airport&oldid=28894679 /wangi 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense Insults Resulting from Removal of Table
oh certain people are like that...you think you are the greatest editor of wikipedia.just get lost if you are not a singaporean...whats wrong with the change to changi airport.you and your dear friends agree the table is an eyesore? oh i think the one that you advocated for is more of an eyesore. with some my destinations...everything is in a mess. stop your nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs)


 * Don't even dare post insults and personal attacks on my talk page. The table was removed by consensus, even from your fellow Singaporeans. Look at the talk page for the actual poll that was conducted to shut you and your holier-than-thou editor friends up. --Physicq210 22:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

oh you are threatening me? go edit a page which you would be able to contribute to the best of your knowledge...not one where you edit because you can get the "RECOGNITION". get lost with your even unsightly standadisation of your project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs)


 * Who's threatening who here? What makes you think I want the recognition that you so crave? Stay off my talk page unless you have something constructive to say. Also, read WP:NPA for once in your life, and follow it. --Physicq210 00:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

oh you aint threatening? what a joke....you aint doing anything constructive to wikipedia so should you stay off? your own version of changi airport is truely the greatest eyesore.. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs)


 * Will you get yourself off my talk page?! Discuss Singapore Changi Airport on the article's talk page, not on mine. Address your concerns there instead of adding nonsense and insulting graffiti onto my pages. And sign your comments. Thank you. --Physicq210 00:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please specify
Thank you for your comment but can you please provide the specifications I asked here?--Pokipsy76 19:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. --Physicq210 19:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

MedCab case
Hello physicq210 - thank you for volunteering to moderate the MedCab case I made re my dispute with another editor over acupuncture-related topics. I will refactor the page to include my opinions and evidence in the proper section. (Being new to the process, I included a lot of that in the "Request Information" section.) Since I've gotten unexpectedly busy, I can't do it right now, but I will within 48 hours. Thanks again and best regards to all involved. -Jim Butler(talk) 04:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is ongoing discussion at category talk:alternative medicine. I hope you can understand that I am not acting unilaterally, and that there are others who are also concerned about 's actions which go against well establised policy and consensus. However, considering he whinges about me being rude every time I point this out, I am just letting others get on with feeding this one. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 09:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also like to point out that the point of "mediation" is to try to resolve the conflict. The issue should not be one of behaviour, though I admit I could be a little more pleasant at times, but one of establishing consensus on the content issue.  You have not tried to necogiate the content issue,  between all parties (of which I am only one), but rather focused over which you have no jurisdiction. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 11:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I have said, I am not finished. I hope that you will understand this point. --physicq210 18:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair-use image removed from your user page
Hello, Physicq210. I've removed Image:Us-ma-bo.png from your user page, as it is a copyrighted image that is being used under a claim of fair use. Unfortunately, by Wikipedia policies, no fair-use images can be used on user pages; please see Removal of fair use images. This image has not been deleted from any articles. If you have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Muni changes
I'm glad you approve :). And I also wanted to add that the changes you made just now are very appropriate. —lensovet–talk – 22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 24th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 04:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research Survey Request
Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 00:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC) PARC User Interface Research Group

BART/Muni 6-line
Hey just out of curiosity, why did you remove the template and replace it with a table? If you want to change the formatting, you can do it on the template directly – http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:BART_Muni_6_line&action=edit —lensovet–talk – 04:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 31st


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks for the quick reversion of my user page earlier today! Daytime vandals are the worst... :) Kuru  talk  00:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism vs. spam
Heya. Probably would work better to use spam rather than accuse spammers of vandalism... --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mel Gibson DUI incident
the vandals are so thick, I can't proof read the thing. :) Dlohcierekim 01:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Userpage revert
Thanks very much.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Userpage vandal
Glad to help. That was a mildly pernicious vandal there, eh? --Avogadro 15:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking that jackoff
Seriously, posting warnings on the usertalk page is doing nothing, and this person is PERSISTENT. 203.214.25.81 needs to be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk • contribs)

you were on that one quick...

 * -) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.34.242 (talk • contribs)

vandalism?
I tried adding an external link in Abstract Art to the Art Renewal Center. The ARC is a non-profit organization dedicated to arts education. I dont see how adding this link is vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.214.77 (talk • contribs)

i disagree
I disagree. The opposite of "abstract art" is "academic art", which if you check the entry, you'll see it being called "sentimental, clichéd, conservative, non-innovative." If you want to delete it in abstract art, why not delete it in academic art? Showing an opposing view enhances the article, it doesnt detract from it. The ARC is one of the foremost known and influental organizations in the art world, and not showing their view on it leaves the topic incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.214.77 (talk • contribs)

Why did you block my addition?
I added stuff to the Alexander Grahem Bell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Graham_Bell page and you reverted it with some vandal software. I was not vandalising the page I was adding to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.63.197 (talk • contribs)

Final state highway naming conventions debate
Physicq210, your participation is welcome in the State route naming conventions poll. Please give your input as to the process by 23:59 UTC on August 8.

Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 7th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandals in the sandbox?
Hey, could I offer a suggestion? You may not want to categorize sandbox users as vandals by using VP on them, especially anon users with few edits, it might alienate them. By the way, I saw you had reverted an edit to Godless: The Church of Liberalism. If that's an article you're interested in, check out the talk page, I just opened a discussion. Karwynn (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Amazing Response to Vandalism
Sir, I found the rapidity of your response to vandalism on the Westboro Baptist Church article with regard to the insertion about an erection of a phallus by that organiztion astounding. Wikipedia obviously has a commendable anti-vandalism system at work. Congratulations.

--A Vandal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.12.234 (talk • contribs)

Mediation Cabal case
Thanks Physicq210! As I noted, I think that this is a situation that can be resolved with the help of a third-party perspective. - N1h1l 18:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Lavieenrose is incorrect. I have not sided with User:Harrypotter on this issue. I have not been responsible for inserting the paragraph in question and I do not believe that there are sufficient sources for its inclusion. Your statement that "Someone's hiding their loyalties here" would appear to assume bad faith. - N1h1l 22:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed my comment. Thanks for pointing it out. --physicq210 22:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * NP. Thanks for taking the time to try and understand things. User:Lavieenrose is correct that User:Paki.tv is party to the dispute and I see that s/he has returned to the article. I'll leave a note inviting him/her to join in the mediation. Not sure if it is appropriate to add users to the "Who's involved?" list or not (is there a policy for additions?). - N1h1l 01:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, users can add themselves to the mediation case if they wish. Removing themselves, however, is another matter. Also, may I ask you a question: Are you a party in this dispute? User:Lavieenrose apparently pointed you out as one of the parties for "inclusion of the paragraph [in question]." Cheers, physicq210 01:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear physicq210, may I ask you to read the following [statement] for an understanding of the dispute going on at the Wikipedia page on PGA. Two people have been excluded from a London Social Centre for disruptive behaviour (and not for valid criticism). It is not nice being excluded from a common space, so these two people are very angry, and carry their personal conflict to Wikipedia. - Shalomsalaam 11:47, 17 August 2006 (CEST)

Of course Shalomsalaam is being quite disingenuous. If you wish to pursue this argument please see Over the Resnik Horizon, particularly the section Peoples Global Action: Network Or Federation for a critique which came out before the LARC show trial. There was never any response to this criticism. . . Harrypotter 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not edit this page again. This is an archive. Add your comments on the current talk page, please. --physicq210 20:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 14th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wangi/RFA
Thanks for your support on my RfA. Give me shout if I can be of help. Thanks/wangi 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A comment on mediation
Regarding this case - having taken a preliminary glance at the case, I just thought it was worth reminding you that mediation isn't about making conclusions or issuing verdicts. Your job as a mediator is to try to get each side to see each other's perspective, and in so doing try to find common ground. When you favour one side over the other (even deservedly) you are no longer an uninvolved thrid party. Coming up with a "verdict", even a preliminary one, is antithetical to what mediation involves. Guettarda 17:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That was my first ever Mediation Cabal case. In retrospect, I have to admit that I bungled up the job and didn't really mediate. --physicq210 23:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I added a strike-through to an article on your list that I have already fixed.
 * Epolk 21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review for San Francisco, California
Hi, The San Francisco, California article was recently nominated for FA status and was rejected. You and several other commentators suggested that peer review would be a good process to go thru to get specific suggestions for improvement. The article has now been placed on the peer review list: Peer review/San Francisco, California/archive1. If you have some time, could you please look over the article and make some comments on the peer review page?

Thank you! --Paul 21:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection for UAL PHX
I've added the Protection request for the UAL and PHX articles -- this has been going on too long. I'm tired of watching the reverts, (I've even tried to revert, but been beaten to it.) —Cliffb 23:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Although this activity is honing my speedy revert skills. ;-) --physicq210 00:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hehe. Good move. Thanks for the notice. Indeed, it is honing one's speedy revert skills eh? Don't revert the correct revert though. Elektrik Blue 82 00:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Same here, have reverted twice to be beaten to it on both occasions. --Arnzy (whats up?)  00:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

One down, one sprotect to go... --physicq210 00:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There you go, both pages sprotected. Elektrik Blue 82 00:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Finally. I get to rest. Thanks for notifying. --physicq210 00:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh.. Thank you for all of your Reverting...  I appreciate the teamwork -- especially on wikipedia.. —Cliffb 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 21st


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Countries WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of counties.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? See some model pages such as Cambodia!
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every country article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Shy1520 10:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 28th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Poll
Are we just waiting for an admin to close it? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I can close it, if you want. --physicq210 00:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I don't really know how and I'm not an admin. --physicq210 00:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Struck vote. Would you reconsider your latest strike out? I know he only had 98 when he voted but he's clearly over the limit now. JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 00:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'd rather wait so that people don't accuse us of bias. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, sure. I'll just add a note regarding the circumstances. --physicq210 00:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ohio
Check the subpage out. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed. --physicq210 00:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

California routebox
Are you aware of this issue by chance? What are your thoughts about it? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically .... (Boy I sure hope I'm not getting this mixed up with the Interstate one. The Interstate one had a similar fate.) WP:CASH had a routebox called routeboxca2. Then came SPUI who decided to redo the whole thing. Noone liked it, and a revert war started. Then SPUI TFd'ed it. When that failed, he created his own Infobox CA Route. And switched about 33% of the articles over to it. When he was reverted, he reverted again. A consensus against him at WT:CASH did nothing. Then this naming convention junk came up and I had to ignore it. I'm not sure what to do next about the matter. The same thing happened in Washington State and a compromise occurred, but there they were less attached to routeboxwa.


 * It seems like SPUI is taking over the highways department and acting like he owns it. Witness the destruction of the Interstate and U.S. Highway routeboxes and the merger into Infobox road. I think it's a good idea, but he never discussed it, just did it. I have a feeling (that is shared by an ArbCom member) that this is going to show up at ArbCom again. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it would eventually be a good idea, but California (which has never been a conformer to national standard) has a junctions list with mileposts. A potential compromise would be to create a separate junction list, but I don't see why everyone else has to change just for SPUI. But in general, this type of thing is going to crop up again and again. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 5th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for a second opinion
Would you be interested in offering a second opinion regarding the Shakespearean authorship case? Addhoc 21:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Addhoc 21:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 11th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

page protection for Iditarod (race)
Honestly, that was less than helpful. Typical wikipedia bureaucracy, no solutions when there is actually a problem, and only people who will point the way instead of helping. Thanks for thinking of me though. Desertsky85451 02:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was very snippy last night. When the FUCK are they going to require registration to edit articles?  I'm finding myself spending more and more time on RC patrol attempting to keep this site clean and clear, but I feel like those on-top just don't care, or don't realize how much vandalism and retarded POV-pushing-editing there is going down. Again, sorry to have snapped at you.  I need to cut down on caffine or something.  Desertsky85451 17:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll
Could you please leave the page alone for a bit? I'm trying to get the table working and the edit conflicts aren't helping. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Um...ok, sure. Sorry for the interference. --physicq210 22:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks... I think it's okay now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for doing that change back to the number format on Matt Fenton's RfA. Much appreciated. - Mike 01:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 18th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll
Out of curiousity, what are your reservations about the convention? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Skachilles
If sites like Somethingawful and GaiaOnline can have pages, Skachilles should, it's an incredibly active and vibrant online community... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.236.216.90 (talk • contribs)


 * Apparently, others (like me), think otherwise. --physicq210 04:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Retraction in DRV
May I inquire as to what developements you are waiting for that you retracted your opinion in the DRV? JoshuaZ 04:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this one of the reasons why votestacking on Wiki never works, because people often react by going in the exact opposite direction of whatever votestacking occured. Sometimes I think that nothing kills an article more than many new users and IPs in an AfD making keep comments. And yet, despite that I would have prefered had Kappa not done that; even though I am strongly against overturning Cyde's decision, both the direct result of Kappa's spamming and the reaction will simply prevent a rational discussion of the matter. Incidentally, if you want to look at the deleted draft of the article, there is a copy in my sandbox- User:JoshuaZ/Sandbox. JoshuaZ 04:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I would argue that an affirmation of the DRV isn't actually relevant to the recreation of the article if that article is sufficiently different, i.e. is better sourced and/or demonstrates notability. Endorsing deletion does not by itself force us not to have an article for that school. JoshuaZ 04:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)