User talk:Shirulashem/Archives/2008/December

RE: Improper Warning Templates Use
Thanks for the info, I am pretty sure that Jungle69 is also IP: 71.245.60.233. I had reverted the IP's edit "T-Bone" and left a level 1 general note on the talk page. Then when I checked the a bit later, Jungle69 had done the same thing "T-Bone" and it was the first edit on the account so I figured they were the same person. If you look at each of their edit histories they both made there first edit on 3rd and again on the 5th at basically the same time. Next time I will just repeat the warning even if I suspect it is the same person, thanks --T*85 (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Meeve user page
Whoops - forgot i wasn't signed in. Meeve (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Just lookin out for ya making sure nobody but you edits your page.  shirulashem     (talk)   19:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 issue of the Military history 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you kindly for the WPNJ award. Unfortunately, I've been quite busy with issues IRL and haven't been able to contribute recently. I'll get back here eventually though. :)  Thanks!  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

ACC
Hey, I have a question for you since you are involved with the ACC thing; about how much time does it take to become a "trusted user"? Your userpage says you've been around for more than 2 years, if you remember it, when did you get access to ACC? I'm a fairly new user (less than 3 months). My first request was rejected due to this reason, and I think its obvious because new users should not be trusted that easily with this. Just need an idea when to re-apply. Cheers! -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 12:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I'm referring to access to the account creation interface, not the "account creator" user right.-Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 12:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think I was a user for over a year before I got the permission. The main thing is that you have to gain the trust of an admin. Just keep editing, and you'll be noticed. The biggest thing, in my opinion, is to get familiar with WikiPedia Policies as much as possible, and if you ever have even the slightest doubt about whether you should make a certain edit or rollback, look through the policies first to make sure you do the right thing. I do it all the time, and it has saved me countless times from mistakes. Once you do that, admins will see that your rollbacks and edits conform nicely to the policies, and they like that. Of course you may already be doing this, but it's a point that can't be emphasized enough. Bottom line is that if you are a trustworthy person, who uses tools properly and follows procedures, you have nothing to worry about. You'll gain the trust and get access to this particular tool. Good luck! If you have any other questions, let me know.  shirulashem     (talk)   13:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you very much for reverting vandalism on my talk page, I just saw it right now.  ■ MMXX  talk  07:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

New Jersey County Colleges
i was assessing nj articles and came across New Jersey County Colleges. Should this be a list?  shirulashem     (talk)   21:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I had always hoped to provide more context about the history of the county college system, but never got around to it. It could probably be a "List of..." article, but that raises a red flag of its own. I do want to thank you again for all of your work in reviewing and assessing NJ articles, and especially in raising these types of issues which go well beyond a mere mechanical grading of these articles. All the best! Alansohn (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ed Snider
I took out all references that could be classified as "personal commentary". You should now have no problem with the rewording.--12.147.221.46 (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is NOT an "inadequate source" for names. These sources are VERY adequate (unless you considerate the New York Times to be an "inadequate source").  I am not sure what your agenda is, but I will not put up with it.  Continue your actions and I will file a formal compaint with the Wikipedia administrators.  --12.147.221.72 (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your additions to Ed Snider are inappropriate and have again been reverted. I have placed my comments on the talk page of the article.  shirulashem     (talk)   16:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My contributions to the Ed Snider article are NOT inappropriate. I am simply stating facts which have been verified by relaible citations.  Instead of deleting the changes, why don't you make CORRECTIONS to them as you see fit? You obviously have a hidden agenda here, and i am beginning to wonder if you have some personal reason as to why you are insisting that this proper information be deleted.  I am considering filing a complaint to the Wikipedia adminstration. --12.147.221.72(talk) 17:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, there was no reason for you to put the warning on my Wikipedia talk user talk page that you did (which I have removed). The warning makes the assumption that there is vandalism occurring from this site.  There has been no such vandalism, and you know it.  We simply have a difference of opinion as to what can be posted on an article (in this case, the Ed Snider article).


 * Your posting of the warning could imply that you are using your power to intimidate. Please be advised that this is wrong and violates Wikipedia policies.
 * Thank you.--12.147.221.72 (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.--12.147.221.72 (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You are begining to really annoy me
Block me. I don't really care; I'll just show up elsewhere on another IP address. You have started something that you really won't be able to stop. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.--12.147.221.72 (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.
 * 2 comments:
 * That didn't look like either a negative BLP issue or any type of vandalism that you reverted (although you called it vandalism), rather a content dispute.
 * I'll unblock if you say you'll abandon the edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll definitely cease the edit war because you blocked the user. But for the future, how do I deal with a case like this when I try to bring the discussion to the talk page but the editor refuses? In a normal article I wouldn't have been so aggressive on the reverting, but this was a BLP and I was erring on the side of caution. I really thought it was negative BLP content to put an UNSOURCED comment like this: "(Christine is approximately the same age as Jay's oldest son.)" which, in this case, meant that the article subject's new wife is the same age as his own grandson!  shirulashem     (talk)   22:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to express my support for ending the block. Both Shirulashem and I have been involved in good faith in trying to address WP:BLP issues at the Ed Snider article, in which User:12.147.221.72 has been adding material that improperly characterizes Snider's marriages. This can be seen by such edits as this one, which added "Snider's only character flaw is within his marriage life and the way that he treats his women. Snider has been married three times; his marriages appear to occur at "change of life" intervals. Snider divorced his first wife (Myrna) to marry a trophy wife, Martha. Martha is approximately the same age as Snider's son, Jay. Snider later divorced Martha and married his third wife, Christine. Christine is approximately the same age as Jay's oldest son." I support taking this matter to some form of mediation and overturning the block. Alansohn (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Your question above
In the future you should make sure you avoid any appearance of edit warring. The bright line definition is more than 3 reverts on any article in 24 hours for other than obvious vandalism or BLP issues, but you can be blocked for less. This does not appear at all to be either a negative BLP or vandalism. In the futre please stop short of edit warring and take the matter to either Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if you cannot make progress on the talk page. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for granting my request to unblock, but I must reiterate that even though you happen to think it wasn't negative BLP, myself and another editor had both reverted the edits because we both believed it was BLP, and when I checked the talk page of the article I saw that a similar edit was tried in 2006, but the edits were reverted because they, too, felt it was NBLP. Now even if all of us are wrong, and you are correct, all you had to do was leave me a note that you felt I was violating 3RR and I would've stopped. Being so quick to slap a block on an established editor with a perfectly clean record is precisely the kind of thing that turns people off to helping out on WikiPedia.  shirulashem     (talk)   22:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I hear you and I want to acknowledge that WP:3RR is by far the easiest rule for a well intentioned editor to run afoul of. However, 3RR is a pretty bright line and that's why we have the noticeboards.  I can tell you're a great editor and that's why I added the note about my willingness to unblock. Further, WP:3RR blocks are not a badge of shame IMHO. It's not like a vandalism block or a personal attack block.   I probably deserved a couple 3RRs along the way myself.    I sincerely hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia and let me know if I can be of assistance.  I mean this. Cheers.  Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding to your email, you stated that you were reverting vandalism, not BLP issues in your edit summaries, and you were warned about the 3RR. Toddst1 (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Warned about the 3RR? The anon editor who kept putting the NBLP content back on the page just copy and pasted the 3RR warning I put on his page. He even copy and pasted the additional comments I put on the warning urging him to stop and bring it to the talk page!! Take a look at the message he copy and pasted onto my talkpage from his talkpage. In any event, the issue is over. Handshake?  shirulashem     (talk)   22:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You bet. I meant what I said about you being a great editor.  Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We're good.  shirulashem     (talk)   22:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks
The barnstar and the graphics are greatly appreciated, but it's the thought behind it that counts most. I hope I did what anyone else would have done in the same situation and I hope we can continue to work together to improve our encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of mensch barnstar
Hi, You took out my mensch barnstar from the barnstar page noting that mensch is not an English word. Actually, it has been in English dictionaries since the mid 19th century. See the entry in Merriam Webster as well as this List of English words of Yiddish origin. I'd appreciate it if you could rollback your undo. Thanks in advance!  shirulashem     (talk)   01:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your consideration in coming to me to discuss the issue. I've posted my comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Awards, that way hopefully others can offer their opinions and advice. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Authoritarism in the 21st century
I'm beginning to see why some people are starting to feel that Wikipedia is not as "free" as it claims to be. Growing authoritarism is a real concern for the 21st century. The threat of authoritarism was among the few ones with references.

Also, an article in The Guardian is a bit more that just one individual making a claim. Plus it's enough to look at the massive demonstrations, like the things happening in Greece, for example, to see that there are real concerns of growing authoritarism. But still, instead of trying to improve it, you simply removed it with one click and without asking any questions.

I guess I could complain to someone, but I'm not going to. All this is desgusting. I just want to forget it. I used to be a big supporter of Wikipedia, but now I'm starting to have serious doubts about it. 89.123.4.134 (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)