User talk:SoWhy/Archive 2

3RR warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Stop abuse. The article has been objectively expanded upon and you continue to remove content and reference material related to the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleredm&m (talk • contribs) 13:54, 14 July 2008


 * Please read WP:3RR before trying to add warnings to other people's talk pages. I have no breached the rule, having reverted your (disruptive) edits exactly three times and not doing so again. You have to understand that the 3RR-rule does not CARE whether the edits are helpful or not, just that you refuse to discuss them. You have reverted to your version five times now and thus I warned you, because you are new and might not know the rule. Further reverts can and most likely will result in you being banned, no matter how helpful you think they are. Regards. --SoWhy Talk 14:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry If that is against some rules, but may I document here my LOL given the reaction of the m&m? Wikieditor2008 (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no rule against laughing about other people as such but WP:CIVIL, WP:GF and WP:NPA should be followed. It is better for yourself anyway if you do not engage in such personal attacks but try to understand people and care about the content they provided, not the way they did so. --SoWhy Talk 18:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * k, will try to remember even those 3 new WP "rule" pages from now on :-) Wikieditor2008 (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't try to remember too many rules, remember their core values: Be nice to other editors, no matter how much you disagree with them. It's quite simple actually and as in real life it will influence others to do the same. I advise this because I know myself, despite being a Wikipedian for four years now, that you cannot know those rules by heart. I don't, I simply guess from the five pillars of Wikipedia (i.e. WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:COPY, WP:EQ and WP:IAR to have them in full length but WP:5 is actually all you need to know for the daily routine or WP:SR if you need some more short advise). All rules are more or less interpretations of those pillars. Have a nice evening. --SoWhy Talk 18:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Du auch, danke schön nochmal Wikieditor2008 (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special
I have nominated Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Sceptre (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Magnum Crimen
To end edit warring in this article I am calling all editors of this article for vote on talk page--Rjecina (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem is that even if this user is blocked because of Suspected sock puppets/72.75.24.245 he will come again and again and again from other IP. All in all "4 users" are supporting his version.--Rjecina (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not able to overwrite policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV. Even if he does so, he will have to be dealt with like every other vandal. But he does make some valid points though, currently the article sounds POV, citing only criticizing sources. It should be expanded and other sources, if available, should be included. I have no particular knowledge of the topic (i.e. the book) but I do know that the Catholic Church and the Utasa did work together in quite horrifying ways and thus there have to be sources to confirm his viewpoint. --SoWhy Talk 22:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not have problem about this. If there are sources which support book he can write them, but he can't delete which he do not like. See similar situation in article Ivo Andric' where this genius is deleting internet sources (1 of this sources is Wikipedia respected source (NYT)) which are speaking that his parents are Croats and changing with version that his parents are Serbs (without internet sources). Funny thing is that his version is saying that Ivo Andric' parents are Serbs but he is leaving in article Wikipedia document which is saying that he is Croat.--Rjecina (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct of course. My point was only to point out that cited article Magnum Crimen should be expanded and written more NPOV. For example the source [3] is from a newspaper, which is described in it's Wikipedia article as a "satirical weekly paper", thus this has to be mentioned in the article. I did the change this time.
 * Also, if you know Serbian, you might want to have a look at the Serbian Wikipedia entry for this book and transfer information from there to the English article. I have transferred from the German version that there are no major errors. --SoWhy Talk 22:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is not even 1 source for this article on serbian wiki but I can give you information which is writen in that text so that you can rewrite article on english wiki. If it is OK for you I will write you that information around 1 hour from now--Rjecina (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are free to do so. I will try to change the article tomorrow then. --SoWhy Talk 23:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Statements from Serbian wiki

 * On 1119 pages Novak has writen about church in Croatia between 1900 and 1945
 * Doctor Novak is attacking church that it is working under orders of Pope against reform movement in Catholic church on territory of new state (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) and against political unity of Croats and Serbs
 * In words of Novak Vatican has been afraid of possibility that reform movement (reform movement has proclaimed creation of Old Croatian catholic church in 1919)will in catholic church on Yugoslav territory will proclaim church unity with Serbian Ortodox church and future creation of Serbocroatian nation.
 * Pope has used diplomatic pressure on Yugoslavia so that Old Croatian catholic church will be proclaimed illegal in 1923.
 * With creation of NDH in Novak thinking catholic church has entered in matrimony with fascist Croatian state.
 * Novak is showing on hundreds pages that Catholic church has supported Ustaše solution of Serbian "problem"
 * For WWII period book is using documentation from books "Court hearing against Lisak, Stepinac, Šalic' and others, ustaša-crusaders criminals and helpers" (original name: Su?enje Lisaku, Stepincu, Šalic'u i družini, ustaško-križarskim zloc(incima i njihovim pomagac(ima) and "Documents about against people work and crimes of one part of catholic priests" (original name:Dokumenti o protunarodnom radu i zloc(inima jednog dijela katolic(kog klera). Both books are published in Zagreb in 1946.
 * First edition of book is published in 1948 and it sold very fast. There has been suspicion (my question is by who ?)that buyers of must of this first edition has been Catholic church which has destroyed books. Today it is very hard to find this edition.
 * During raise of nationalism in Serbia and shortly before start of Yugoslav Wars (this is my comment) there has been 2 other editions in 1986 and 1989.
 * English version of book is from Prometheus Books which are publishing dissenting books. German publisher of book is from Ariman publishing house which is publishing intolerant and aggressive nonsense . (all this is my adding)

Serbian version of wiki is really saying "in words of Novak", "in Novak thinking" and similar.--Rjecina (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was not aware of any English-language edition and can find no evidence that such an edition was published by Prometheus. I can find no mention of it either on their website or at the link provided. Am I missing something? Kirker (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is none as far as I can see. But Rjecina's points above can be included in the article as they only reflect what the content of the book is. --SoWhy Talk 10:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake ! This are publishers of book:"The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican: The Croatian Massacre of the Serbs During World War II by Vladimir Dedijer (Editor), Harvey L. Kendall (Translator) Prometheus Books" not of book in question. There is no foreign language publishers of book Magnum Crimen.--Rjecina (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dalit Editing
Thanks for helping with editor Arjuna316. I believe his heart was in the "right" place but his "head" kept misreading and mis-interpreting what was happening. I never questioned his POV. I doubted it, at times. I wondered if his agenda wasn't just to "muddy the water." I think he is a better editor because of his experience at "Dalit".--Buster7 (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, although I did no work on the article itself, I just tried to stop him from messing up redirects. No thanks is in order in this case. I do hope he will learn from the experience though. Have a nice day :-) --SoWhy Talk 17:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism on wood page
So, you're not worried about dying in a week? skeptical scientist (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Should I? I mean, I rather appreciate the fact that I know the day of my death in advance, it allows me to live accordingly - i.e. without a care for the world ;-) -- So # Why  11:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary editing
Leave John Dundee article alone - it is exactly as family want it

Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that the family's wishes are not the one's that are important for the way, a Wikipedia article is to look like. So please have a look at WP:MOSBIO and you should rather stop making changes which destroy sentences and paragraphs. Regards. -- So # Why  17:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The article has now been withdrawn because of petty editing by yourself and others. This was never intended to a biograpy and was never listed as such. It was a general article about one of Northern Ireland's leading academics - pity you have deprived many people of it.

Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in the subject, to make this clear. I just reverted your edits because you removed letters from different words and thus the edits were vandalism. Second, this is a collaborative project and thus a single editor like yourself can't decide what style a certain article should have (see WP:OWN). Articles about living or dead persons are per definition biographical and thus has to be treated as such (if you cannot explain why it shouldn't). This aside, have a nice day.  So # Why  20:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have his certificates, diplomas etc. so I know the correct letters etc. I therefore do not consider my edits to be vandalism but consider yours to be so.  You have stated you are not interested in the subject so maybe you should just leave it along - you obviously haven't give a thought to the feelings of his family, maybe you should learn a little respect

Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have, but feelings are no guideline for Wikipedia because if they were, we could never get anything done. It is a difference between respect for the feelings of others and making them the guideline for your edits. But as you will see from WP:VAN is that your edits, how ever much you think them to be correct, nevertheless constitute vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines (as well as a breach of the three revert rule). But I know you acted in good faith so I am trying to tell you how to allow you to have your concerns heeded without need for any reverts. You should discuss your concern on Talk:John Dundee, explaining why you think that facts are incorrect and, if possible at all, provide reliable sources. You will not be able to change the fact that articles about living or dead persons are per definition biographies and thus WP:MOSBIO has to be followed but I doubt that style issues are really the worst problem. If you are civil and try to explain to the rest of the community, why you think some facts are to be changed and if you are correct, you will be able to convince them (I should hope) and we can all try to create a correct article about John Dundee which then will allow the users of Wikipedia to learn all there is to know about him. Have a nice evening.  So # Why  22:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep out of issues you don't know. As I have stated I have his certificates, diplomas, publications etc, even his OBE so I am qualified to and can support every issue.  The family wishes this to be withdrawn but Wikipedia have not responded despite several emails - Have a nice evening - grow up! Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I never did any editing on the content so I do not see where your problem lies. As I stated before, my changes were merely cosmetical as they only involved the style of the page. Also, as stated before, the way an article is classified or which style it uses it not up to any single editor (again, see WP:OWN). If your wishes collide with the guidelines and policies then your wishes will not be implemented unless you can name good reasons for ignoring the rules. If you want to see a factually-correct article about John Dundee you need to work with the rest of the community.
 * Also, the family's wishes to have no article about him are to be measured against the law and the guidelines as well and I fear you will not find sufficient basis there to do that. Also, you have to admit that you are in a conflict of interest regarding this article and thus are likely to, even if unwillingly, write the article in your point of view. It is the job of the rest of the community to correct you if you do so and if you are not willing to allow this to happen, you will not be able to contribute efficiently to Wikipedia. Please take these things into consideration. Have a nice day.  So # Why  07:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Biggty
FYI - blocked 31 hours for disruption, article deleted and protected to prevent recreation. He's clearly the same person who created the article a couple of days ago and was indef blocked, but since the article's protected I'll keep an eye on his edits to see if he starts to contribute productively. GBT/C 12:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, thanks for pointing out the broken userbox. I use my own because I prefer it to fit into my colour scheme. GBT/C 12:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info and no problem. I like your userbox, blue is really better than the usual yellow. Maybe, if you want to share it with the rest of us, you could create a -Template. I would use it for sure ;-)  So # Why  12:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done (although it's a Wiki so there's nothing to stop you just copying it off my userpage in the first place...! GBT/C 12:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't, but I respect it if people want to have something unique on their user pages and thus will not do so unless others did so before (and thus it's not unique anymore) or unless they allow me to :-)  So # Why  12:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

DRV of an IfD
I'm advising all participants in the that a subsequent DRV. Your participation is welcome. Dreadstar †  01:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for Capitalizing the title of the page I was adding. I did not notice my mistake until I was not able to change it anymore to Capital letters.

Could you also please add the "von" particle to the title? (To make it: Karl Josef von Bachmann) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin von Bachmann (talk • contribs) 09:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Again thanks and best regards,

Martin von Bachmann —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin von Bachmann (talk • contribs) 09:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I did so, as well as wikifying the article. You may want to read WP:EDIT to learn how to edit Wikipedia correctly.  So # Why  09:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. I was trying to do more or less the same thing, but I am not nearly as fast as you are. In the time I needed to check the format used in Wikipedia you had already changed everything so that it fit. I hope that practice will help.
 * Best regards,
 * Martin von Bachmann —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin von Bachmann (talk • contribs) 10:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We all have to start. Few tips: Try reading the aforementioned WP:EDIT, also see WP:5 for the basic guidelines. As your name indicates you may be under a conflict of interest regarding those articles you created, so you might want to be careful to remain neutral. Also, remember to sign your posts on talk pages like this one with "~" which will automatically put your name and the time in place (but never(!) use it in articles). Hope you will enjoy your stay here and if you have any questions I'll be happy to assist you as best as I can.  So # Why  10:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thank-you
Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Barry Liebmann
All but one of the sources found for Barry has been directly tied to Mad itself. An article cannot survive on primary sources alone. I, too, found the sources on Mad's website, but I'm finding almost nothing outside of Mad itself to verify so much as his existence. Therefore, I think that your "keep" in the afd is unsubstantiated. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 23:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A primary source would be Mr. Liebmann himself. DC Comics or MAD Magazine, who are effectively employers, are thus secondary sources as they are not in fact the person itself. Everything they remark about him is an outside view and thus allowable as a secondary source. Thus I stand by my "keep"-vote unless you can prove those sources to be wrong (which might be the case).  So # Why  review me! 07:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm still not convinced enough to withdraw so I'll let the AfD run its course. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 18:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Noone forces you to. As WP:RS does not specify exactly if those sources, like MAD or DC Comics, should be treated as primary sources (like you do) or as secondary (which I think), we have no choice but to see where the AfD takes us. :-)  So # Why  review me!

King's Quay
Thanks.--Streona (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Trabzon
But Pontian language too isnt offical in Trabzon i know cuz i am from Trabzon.Lazs are living in Trabzon but they cant speak Laz langauge.Trabzon are polilingual town.Blacsea Turkish, Pontian Greek, Laz and Hamsheni Armenian !!!

Speedy Deletion? Bad idea
I've only just created the stub. Give me time to expand it and make it a worthwhile article. Ovesey was a major figure who influenced people's ideas about homosexuality, he is a notable, and there is every reason to have an article about him. Skoojal (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to do so. But you should consider not saving the article until you had, otherwise this will happen more often. Or you could consider creating the article in your Userspace first and then moving it/copy-pasting it or placing the -template to the article to avoid such confusion in the future... Have a nice day nevertheless :-)  So # Why  review me! 11:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specific reason for thinking that it cannot be turned into a good article? That Ovesey was a significant figure is well known to anyone interested in the history of homosexuality. Skoojal (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have none. I never said so anyway. An article with the only content being "XXX was an American YYY" is WP:CSD-eligible and that's why I tagged it as such. As I said above, there are ways you can create an article without fear of such tagging and I advise you use them. Otherwise you will only keep on being disappointed when people tag one-sentence-articles for deletion. But I am quite happy that you are trying to contribute to Wikipedia and I encourage you to continue doing so :-)  So # Why  review me! 11:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a one sentence article anymore, because I added a couple of reliable sources indicating that Ovesey was a notable figure. Skoojal (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. You should add everything important before saving the page to avoid something like that in future. I have removed the CSD now^^  So # Why  review me! 12:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Joana Raposo
Hi, please do not call my edits vandalism and check the history of  properly. I was tagging the article and when I had finished I found an empty artcile, so I g6 as per guidlines. The blanking was done by another editor. --triwbe (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read the edit summary, you will see that I called the "db-a1" tag vandalism, not the "db-g6" tag you placed. I just reverted all of those back to the first version, as your G6 was only a reaction to the A1-vandalism. But I will try to be more specific next time to avoid confusion.  So # Why  review me! 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have the wrong glasses on :-) Cheers. --triwbe (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your NPWatcher application
Dear SoWhy,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

GbT/c 17:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed tag on MSAD #31
Thanks for your help on the article Msad 31. I couldn't figure out what was wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patman21 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. You might want to have a look at other articles using the same infobox next time, to just copy the correct way from them. And btw, great work on that article!  So # Why  review me! 21:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)