User talk:Merope/Archive14

{| style="text-align:center; border: 1px solid #000000; background-color:#86aedc; width: 100%" ! User Page · Talk Page · Archives · Contributions I was wanting to be coached, and was wondering if you would coach me? **   ko   2007    **   21:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * - padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;"
 * style="text-align:left; padding: 8px; background-color:#dfe8f3"|
 * style="text-align:left; padding: 8px; background-color:#dfe8f3"|

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI - September 2007
The September 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 09:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Merope
Hi, I am no sockpuppet, madame, but I am just trying to ask you something: Why did you block Sonicrules2?--71.176.15.240 03:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible puppet
Dear Merope --

I think someone who is trying to make changes to an article in which I am particularly interested is a sockpuppet of a banned editor who attempted similar changes under two confirmed sockpuppet IDs. Although I have edited Wikipedia articles, I know virtually nothing about Wikipedia's administration; that is why I bring this to you.

You are the only Wikipedia administrator with whom I've had any interaction. (We dealt with each other when you were stripping Paul Watkins (Manson Family) of links that I had placed in it and that possibly infringed copyright.) I am not sure how to proceed on my suspicion; but if the person to whom I'm referring is indeed a sockpuppet of someone under the ban, I'd like him stopped.

Because I don't want to smear anyone, I am not indicating the ID of the party I'm concerned about. I'll wait for your advice.JohnBonaccorsi 07:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful reply.JohnBonaccorsi 14:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No email?
Merope, baby, you no answer your email! Drop me a line! --CaesarGJ 02:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Can you redelete my old talk page again? Someone decided to comment there again.. Can I suggest WP:SALT? — M o e   ε  20:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule
I find complitely astonishing that you advise me about the three revert rule because I reverted controversial actions made without any explanation in articles' talk pages. The subject is enough controversial -as you can see in the recently closed arbitration- so that any contribution which is likely to be polemical should be discussed first in the talk page. Moreover if some of the contributions made by this user are complitely non-sense. I want to remark I was not the only user reverting the contributions from Kurrop but there was at least two other users reverting his/her contributions. (S)he was pushing for his/her versions without discussing and I asked him/her to discuss first and since (s)he didn't, I came to the administrators noticeboard to ask you to tell him/her exactly to discuss first the changes in the talk page. And then you come and you leave me a message asking me to use the talk page. Is it a joke?

Anyway, I won't revert anymore any of his/her contributions, but in that case I beg you to look carefuly his/her contributions so that only well discussed changes may be accepted. Thank you very much.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said I'm right and (s)he is wrong. I just said that before making this changes (s)he had to discuss it in the talk pages and (s)he didn't. I wrote him/her personally because his/her changes were affecting many articles, and you can see which were his/her answers: "No rules prohibe me to modify that stub. Or two flag or no one", when there are already hundreds of stubs with one flag. Anyway, perhaps I should have seated and see how (s)he changes some dozens of articles while I tell him/her that this is not correct and nothing else happens, could be. Next time I will do it and I won't revert him/her, but I think that's pretty unfair.
 * Btw, as I told, the arbitration is already closed.
 * Finally, another user is attaking this pages, this time clearly with vandalism: Special:Contributions/84.120.66.85. Could you look it up, please?--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * User is making againg the reversions. (S)he has opened a talk and before reaching any consensus, before even giving time to answer, (s)he already made some revertions, even if (s)he was warned not to do it before discussing. I am sorry, but this situation doesn't encourage me a lot to discuss with him/her.
 * What should I discuss? Roses is a Catalan city as well as it is Spanish. It is no mistake to say it is a Spanish citiy. It is no mistake to say it is a Catalan city. It is just a matter of who wrote first the article. Exactly as when an article is written in British or American English. None of them is wrong. So neither the "Catalan" nor the "Spanish" denomination is wrong. It wouldn't neither be wrong "European". As far as I know, there is no other city in Europe called Roses. His/her contributions are not improving the article but just choosing a point of view, and before allowing to talk. I will not revert any of his/her contributions, as I already said. I give up, I didn't come here just to fight trolls. Thanks.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 02:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Btw, user is doing exactly the same kind of contributions of the former anonymous user. I don't know if you know much Spanish but this contribution  he adds that south-american people are (free translation): chimpanzees, rubbish, cockroachs, simians, ...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 02:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Yidisheryid
Thank you. I added more evidence to the WP:ANI entry, by the way. I am afraid that he may not fully understand the idea of collaborative editing, and the fact that the resulting article is never the way any of us envision the perfect article to be, but at the least it should end up accurate and from a neutral perspective. Once again, I appreciate your understanding and your decision. -- Avi 18:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, those are only a selection; not the sum total of edits that may be used to represent a pattern. Secondly, I believe that the pattern remains visible, even if he may be able to provide a commentary for each edit. There are many, many other wiki editors involved in heated discussions that do not amass an edit history such as User:Yidisheryid, in my opinion. Thanks again. -- Avi 19:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. There are several of us out there that really appreciate it and understand how difficult it must be to reason and "argue." BTW, I read your page and if my math is correct, then you're close to 7 feet, in which case your statement is true that you're "really, really, tall." :) Thanks again. Yossiea (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, it's my math that's probably wrong. I'm only 6'4".  (Heh, "only".)  -- Merope 21:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Or my 10 second googling of the average height plus deviation. (Now you got me thinking of that horrible Gulliver's Travel movie that butchered the book. Oh well.) Yossiea (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi Merope, the first thing that I want to do is to apologize if I have broken some norm of the English wikipedia. (sorry for my english level is a bit poor). I think that many of the articles referred to the Spanish region of Catalonia has not a neutral point of view WP:NPOV because in many articles is tryed to conceal that a city, a personage or a monument are not Spanish but simply Catalan. Putting confused maps, obviating the Spanish nationality of the prominent figures, etc. Best Regards. Sorry again for my bad english.! :)--Kurrop 21:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

sudacas. wikipedia
1º BEfore erasing anything read the links which are below. If you do not know anything about the subject, then do not erase anything.

I recommend you to read all the links of the newspapers and media cited below the article before acting again against the right of speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manrodmar 99 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!
Ma'am - thank you for your swift work in deleting User:Blackblackbahbah. I did what I could but being a mere Wikipeon, I lack the tools... Darth Doctrinus 15:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for all of your help regarding User:Dynamic IPs - AnemoneProjector's worst nightmare. AngelOfSadness talk  16:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Noir of the Week as a valid EL
Re. User talk:RedSpruce: After about 24 hours there haven't been any arguments supporting the notion that links to articles on the Noir of the Week website that were written by notable authors are a violation of WP:EL guidelines. May I assume that you would have no objection to me restoring such links? RedSpruce 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)