User talk:Pantherskin/Archive

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! Shinerunner (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC) ‎
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

sockpuppet investigation
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Marbehraglaim‎‎. Thank you. ► RATEL ◄ 05:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, how low can one sink. Pantherskin (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

SPA
Clearly you are yet another SPA set up to harass me. You are one sick puppy. ► RATEL ◄ 02:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC) SPI proved nothing, so this would be a PA. Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  20:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Its only a puppet!
I would sugest that you stop deleting the accusation of sockpuppetry on [] or you might get a ban foor 3RR violation. I think it would be better for you to raise questions about it being harresment elsewere.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Raised at ANI, but I will continue to remove it. Let them block me, at least then an admin will look at the harassment by Noloop. I really dont care anymore, I am probably done with Wikipedia for the time being after being called a cockroach, a psychopath, a sockpuppet, a sick puppy and whatever else here. Pantherskin (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will miss you. And I don't see why people make unnessecary accusations. Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  15:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is why. Whilst others seem to enjoy virtual immunity.16:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

Your Stalking, Trolling
Courtesy notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Trolls_of_Anti-Americanism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome back'Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, couldnt believe what Noloop posted here. Noloop accusing others of stalking, trolling? Seriously? Pantherskin (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you believe this? Abce2 |  Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  19:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop RFC
Requests for comment/Noloop Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case (Noloop)
An arbitration case involving User:Noloop has been opened. I noticed that you placed a sockpuppet tag on his userpage on 12 August. The sockpuppet investigation page is here. Would you be able to present evidence at the case pages about this? I am asking the checkusers and clerks to add evidence as well. Carcharoth (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hey Pantherskin, I believe from your comments in the EEML case pages that you are Georgian? Not that there's anything wrong with that :) If the answer is affirmative, would you mind translating something into Georgian for me? It's a few sentences only. Would appreciate help with this. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 19:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. -- Banj e b oi   18:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming bad faith on your part would probably be the most flattering option. Pantherskin (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, actually, we extend good faith to all editors. I'm assuming your disputing this content and source and have asked for others to help see the best way forward. The results of which should stay with the article for future editors to see why some decisions were made. I was restoring sourced content that had been removed without explanation and you accused me of purposely damaging the encyclopedia by perpetuating a hoax with no evidence the information is untrue or that I was purposely hoaxing anything. As a suggestion, make it clear next time why you are removing something and make a path for dialog. -- Banj e  b oi   20:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As a suggestion to you, think before you edit an article. Pantherskin (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom clerk warning
You have recently engaged in a series of posts on ArbCom pages which were deliberately inflammatory and breached the specific guidelines on user conduct handed down by ArbCom concerning the EEML case. You are thus receiving a first and final warning. Any further misconduct will result in a ban from the relevant ArbCom pages until the conclusion of the EEML case. Violation of that ban will result in blocking. Manning (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Schieder commission
Hi, your comments are actually helpful and I appreciate them. Can you help with editing the article? I think I understand what you're saying so I could do it myself but I know that any edits by me will be attacked by some people.radek (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I split up the Moeller ref into page citations to make it easier to find the relevant info. I also added info on the commission's conclusions (including from other sources). I also expended the methodology section to incorporate some of the issues you raised at talk.

I would really appreciate it if you could comment on these issues further (and edit the article accordingly) - I think it's a good article and even if it has some issues these can be fixed with a bit of work.radek (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I appreciate your comments, but please be specific. As in what the problem is and how it should be addressed. The sources are there, in English, a click away, so please go ahead and incorporate what needs to be in there.10:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/WBQK‎
I didn't vote, hence my closure. Also, it is withdrawn, so it makes it even more easily closed and it was a snow keep long before it was withdrawn. I would ask that you re-revert my closure (poor form there) and let this AfD die. - Neutralhomer (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It says "Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest"...nowhere does it say that if I created the article. If it does, please show me where. - Neutralhomer (talk)
 * I didn't say that I hadn't edited it, but you said it stated that if I created the article, it was COI....it doesn't say that. If you are going to cite policy, you really need to cite it correctly.  I personally wasn't aware of the "you edit the page alot, you can't close the AfD" policy, but now I know. - Neutralhomer (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources on WBQK
I responded to your post on Talk:WBQK. You might want to watchlist the page if you are going to have a long conversation there. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 23:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep looking, more has been added. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 23:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Just thought I'd let you know that Noloop has started editing again. Hope we don't get off on the wrong foot again. Abce2 | If you would   like to make a call..  23:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

you have reply at talkpage
--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Revert war
Hi, Pantherskin, I see no reason to have you as an enemy because of our negative interaction from the past which wasn’t even serious. There are ample proofs of your positive contributions to Wikipedia that’s why I know it is only a phase that can pass, allowing us to edit on good terms. Please, don’t take revenge on me as a person because of EEML, Schieder commission, and so on. The bio is well referenced – we both know it. Poeticbent talk  19:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Lavrentiy Beria
Please discuss your edits at this article's talk page. Before such a large section of the article is removed, consensus must be obtained at the article's talk page, especially if another editor raises an objection. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Complete nonsense. Please do not make up any policies to support you re-addition of unsourced sensationalist rumors into an article. It is edits such as yours that are responsible for the bad reputation Wikipedia has. Pantherskin (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have substantially reworked this section of the Beria article. Upon reflection I think you were right that there was some stuff there that sounded very much like urban legends, and some refs to the British newspaper articles discussing these urban legends as such. I removed that part, and replaced it with a, hopefully, more neutral and balanced presentation, with references to books specifically dealing with the subject. I also removed, for now, the Antonov-Ovseyenko quote, since it was fairly radical but not explicitly sourced. You may want to take another look at this section and see if you want to work further on it (I am basically done with it myself as I am not really an expert on Beria and am not all that interested in the topic). Nsk92 (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Lia Looveer
Hello Pantherskin. You are technically over WP:3RR on this article. (Four reverts in 24 hours beginning at 11:02 on 18 December). You may be able to avoid a block if you will respond to the complaint at WP:AN3 and agree not to edit the article for a week. To solve the actual dispute, it would help if you would propose an additional forum whose conclusion you would accept. If you can't think of anything, ask me. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you able to propose a compromise on the wording which you think fully accords with the sources? I perceive that sources show she worked for the German government during WWII, and her work had something to do with radio. The dispute appears to be whether she was involved in propaganda. I don't see why the wording can't be tweaked to show only what is known for sure. Your response at AN3 was critical of many people, but I still don't know what you think should be said in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You may wish to comment at the OR noticeboard. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Tylman
Hi, I don't think it is a good move to start removing content like that now, we discussed that content at length at the BLPN and there was no agreement or support for its removal and that was quite recently, challenging it again now seems a bit excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that two uninvolved editors were not able to verify this information it seems a bit strange to keep it in the article. Pantherskin (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replaced it, please do not edit war over this content, it was well discussed at the BLPN and is fine, take it to a noticeboard if you don't like it. Off2riorob (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You please do not edit war over it - and use the talk page to discuss your edits. You say it was well discussed, but if two uninvolved editors are unable to verify a claim it is a strong indication that something is dubious about it. Provide evicence that the claims is true and can be verified, or otherwise I will remove it again. Pantherskin (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I suggested, with your frame of mind as regards this article I would if I was you simply take it off your watchlist and then it won't bother you anymore. Please don't turn what is a silly little article into a battlefield, I assure you it is not worth it. Off2riorob (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is all you can say. I note that you are not willing to discuss the content, and the lack of verifiability. I am wondering why you take this extreme personal interest in this article? You claim you are uninvolved, but for an uninvolved editor you comment quite excessively on the deletion review and here. Pantherskin (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I talked at length about the content on the BLPN board with you very recently, a compromise was reached to trim the excessive flowery content and keep what was left, nothing excessive at all. I am related to this article from that only, and as I have said from my position as a neutral imo the article is harmless and not excessive in any way and yet I found a few people, apparently desperate to delete it, I don't see any reason at all for that and I have simply been resisting that. Off2riorob (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I found out only recently that not only the anon ip, but also User:Victoriagirl were unable to verify this bit (and a few more) by checking the provided sources. That makes this whole article and its sourcing rather dubious, as all sources are in the end leading back to the subject, if not directly then through the convenience links provided. Is anyone really in the position to actually verify obscure sources such as Glos. I do not think so, what means that we have to rely on self-published sources that in the past have been shown to be wrong and misleading. Pantherskin (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Votes by IPs
The IPs could be clones of registered users, therefore the common practice is to declare that they are not allowed to vote. That's how it was the last time I checked, and I do not believe the rule has changed. ADM (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The link I provided in my edit summary is quite clear about it (Articles_for_deletion) - unregistered accounts are welcome. The comment of the IP might be discounted by the closer, but that is it. If you have reasons to believe that the IP is a sockpuppet initiate a sockpuppet investigation, otherwise the IP could be as much a sockpuppet as I, you or anyone else commenting in the deletion discussion could be. Please self-revert the strike-through. Thanks. Pantherskin (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It says that they are welcome to contribute to the discussion, however it doesn't say that they can vote. I interpret it as disallowing their yeas/nays in the vast majority of cases, i.e. almost anytime there are enough registered users around. ADM (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, AfD are not votes. You are right that sometimes unregistered users are not allowed to vote, for example at WP:RFA, but at AfD their comments are allowed and in fact welcome. Pantherskin (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov
A tag has been placed on Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov 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 important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles 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. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov


The article Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Article makes no assertion of notability under WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What a coincidence that it is Malik Shabazz again. Pantherskin (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If Borisov is notable under WP:ACADEMIC, please indicate which item number he satisfies. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Item 5 says:
 * The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
 * Does Borisov hold a named chair? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, he does. Ask anyone familiar with Russian universities. I am concerned that it was you, exactly you who tagged the article given our past interaction and your misrepresenation of my actions and attacks. Very weird coincidence. Pantherskin (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the name of the professorship? Neither the article nor the source say he holds a named chair appointment. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * He holds the chair of Russian history until the XIV century. As you should probably know university systems differ across countries. There are no named chairs in Russia, not in the sense of being named after donors or the like. Chairs in Russia are roughly equivalent to what would be a center or institute in the US, what in fact would be even more than just a named chair in the US. The article thus satisfies not only criterion #5 but also #6. And it would also upon expansion also satisfy criteria #1 (extensive publication list in major journals), #2, #3 and possibly #7 (his work for television).
 * Care to explain btw how you found this article? By coincidence while educating yourself about Russian historians? Pantherskin (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov
I have nominated Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov. 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.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at WP:AN/I, you will be blocked for vandalism. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop harassing me. Pantherskin (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

notable?
Tylman, 3 times you have been involved in AFD and it is still here, ading notability templates is pointy, there is no discussion going on about it, its tiresome imo and valueless. Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop Wikihounding me
When ArbCom declined your Arbitration request against me, you were asked to agree to a voluntary interaction moratorium, to which you agreed.

In recent weeks, your name keeps popping up below mine in the strangest places. This is the latest instance.

Please stop Wikihounding me or I will bring you to AN/I. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)
Hi, Pantherskin. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comment
Could you please refrain from making outrageous and off-topic comments such as[]. Please immediately cross out the smear you wrote about me. Thank you-- Ms.Mamalala 15:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Pantherskin (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It goes on your record.-- Ms.Mamalala 15:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)