User talk:Tentontunic/Archive 6

Hidden Lake Winery
Thanks for the edit. It is much appreciated. Aholb
 * Your welcome. Tentontunic (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Content
The debate about the Lebanon section you just deleted is still continuing. Please do not delete it until a clear consensus has been reached on the article's talk page. --rpeh •T•C•E• 17:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
 * 3) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Although the edit war is over, and the template above is inapplicable inasmuch as that is true, you should familiarize yourself / abide by WP:DISRUPT:
 * "editors should note that the three revert rule should not be broken even by editors attempting to revert disruptive edits"


 * A report of your activity on the Disinformation page is being entered at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
 * Anarchangel (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Communist terrorism
Could you please remove this comment which may be seen as a personal attack. TFD (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have struck the perceived personal attack. Tentontunic (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Belated
It has been my experience (my perception, of course) that "NPOV"ing of the Soviet legacy on WP is a veritable cottage industry. Apologies for the belated welcoming! P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect your perceptions are correct. But thank you for the welcome belated or not, it is appreciated given the usual messages posted here are, unpleasant shall we say. Tentontunic (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Father Stalin
I have not. This looks interesting though; it could use the original lyrics (presumably Ukrainian), for the text as it stands certainly seems like a poeticised translation. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I only have the English translation from Bloodlands. I shall continue on my quest to find other sources. Thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

CPI(ML)PW
Hi. I replied again at the talk page. However, to begin with, you ought to recognize that the organization no longer exists as such. "is" is incorrect, "was" is correct in the first sentence. --Soman (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I know in 04 they merged with the MCC to become the CPI. Tentontunic (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding MCC, please note that no organization in South Asia uses the name "Center". South Asia uses British spellings of English. MCC, MCC(I) and MCCI are the same, its just different names for different stages of development of the same organization (which eventually merged into CPI(Maoist)). --Soman (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Left-wing terrorism
Please see Template:POV: "This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:  2.Discussions about neutrality issues have stopped (for more than a few days)." Tags are supposed to be used in order to draw attention to problems that may be resolved. What specific changes do you think should be made to this article? If this article is merged into Communist terrorism, will it make that article POV? TFD (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I add POV templates to articles that I believe lack neutrality and remove them where I believe there are no neutrality issues, and either there is no recent discussion, no POV issues have been identified or consensus has been achieved. TFD (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No matter, thank you again. Tentontunic (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for editing the article in violation of the restrictions that apply to it on the page Mass killings under Communist regimes. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.  Sandstein  15:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)  Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Tentontunic
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – Tentontunic (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : restrictions This one made up by the blocking administrator.


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Tentontunic
This is not an Arbcom imposed sanction, after a little digging around I found that Sandstein has in fact created this restriction himself. . I think a one week block is far to harsh for removing a POV tag which has sat on an article since 2009. I also think one admin creating and imposing such harsh sanctions alone is not quite right, were is the consensus for this restriction? Who was informed of these restrictions? I had no part in any conversation regarding them. I had not even seen the damn restrictions when I edited the page. I should like this block reduced to time served and will of course abide by these restrictions in future, now that I know they are there. I had als ojust been told by The Four Deuces that this was allowed. In fact I shall take a voluntary 6mth ban from the article, it is more trouble than it is worth. Tentontunic (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Tentontunic

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

How long does this actually take
I posted an unblock request at 16:21 so that my appeal against a one week block would be reviewed. I see no way to e-mail the blocking administrator on his talk page and as no one has looked at my un block request to move my appeal to the correct forum I am trying this. Please forgive me if this is a misuse of this template but I am a little frustrated at having had to wait so long to begin y appeal. Tentontunic (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone here is a volunteer, we cannot guarantee a prompt response. The blocking administrator, has email enabled: on either his user page or talk page, look in the left hand sidebar for a link "Email this user". You may have to click "Toolbox" to make it visible. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't see "Email this user" in Sandstein's left hand sidebar, it's possible, I'm not sure, that you may have to enable your own email first. To do that, click on "My preferences" at the top of the screen, and on the "User profile" tab, at the bottom, enter your email address (which nobody will see) and check the box marked "Enable e-mail from other users." JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I do not wish to have my e-mail made public or receive messages from random strangers. I shall have to wait the block out I suppose. Thank`s again. Tentontunic (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am aware of your unblock request but do not believe that it should be granted. Admins have the authority to impose discretionary sanctions without consensus in this topic area, and you were made aware of the sanction by way of the edit notice that appeared above the edit box. The addition or removal of the POV tag, in particular, has been the topic of much edit-warring in the past, including notably by you. The most recent removal of the tag by you, for which you were blocked, is a continuation of this long-running edit war. I will therefore not lift your block on the basis of your appeal or submit your appeal to a community discussion.  Sandstein   22:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You were aware and choose to ignore me and let me sweat? How very kind of you. I did not see the notice when I removed the tag, I assumed it was the 1R one. I have removed the POV tag twice, and one of those was self reverted, that is not edit warring. Given you are the blocking administrator and thus are involved you have no right to refuse my right of appeal. I have not asked you to lift the block, I have asked for the block to be reviewed, as is my right. Tentontunic (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not declined your unblock request. You will need to wait until an administrator reviews it.  Sandstein   22:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not an unblock request, it is an appeal. I followed the instructions in the block notice. Your refusal to move the appeal to the appropriate forum is bad form, the fact that I have said I will not edit the article for six months ought to be enough to have the block lifted, it is far in excess of the supposed crime. Tentontunic (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And the digwuren arbitration decision on imposing sanctions say Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. I was not given any warning link by an administrator. You have not even followed to correct protocol on this matter. Tentontunic (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You have been given a link to the Digwuren decision - in the edit notice. Nonetheless, provided that you adhere to your agreement not to edit the article for six months, I have lifted your block as it is no longer needed.  Sandstein   07:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The River Saile
The article The River Saile you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The River Saile for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you for looking, I shall expand upon it once my block expires.

Punching pregnant women
I figured you must have seen that. The Interior (Talk) 12:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya but it took a few minutes, I`m looking for better sourcing on that BLP now. Tentontunic (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:DYK
When you create a beyond-WP:STUB article like Bloodlands: Europe Between Stalin and Hitler, consider adding inline citations to each sentence, not just paragraphs, and nominate your work at T:TDYK for a front-page exposure. Also, consider adding WP:ASSESS talk page tags like I did for you. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what most of that means. I am guessing the assess thing is what you have put on the talk page? A cite for each line would be overkill don`t you think? I`ll go look at the T:TDYK thing now. Thanks. Tentontunic (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A cite for each line is useful as other editors can move your sentences around and insert more. I will try to expand the article and nominate it for T:TYK for you, but in the future, you may want to do it yourself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I am looking slowly over the TYK thing. It looks quite complex, the next article I create I shall try to do as you have suggested. Tentontunic (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Father Stalin
I have provided my comments on possible copyright violations on this article on the article's discussion page. I suggest that that is the appropriate forum for discussion of the deletion request. TFD (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have deleted it. To say "This was a nursery rhyme from 1930. It is not nor ever has been copyrighted." is simply wrong - see the WP:FAQ/Copyright: "The absence of a copyright notice does not mean that a work may be freely used." If you are saying that because of its age it is in the public domain, you would need to show that it had been published before 1923 - see WP:FAQ/Copyright. Also, it is probable that the translator has a copyright on the English version. JohnCD (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice


The article Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Relatively new journal, apparently not indexed anywhere. Apart from a very minor controversy (see references 1 and 2), no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals.

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. Crusio (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Crusio (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

On using templates
Hello Tentontunic, as you might have seen I've come across some of your C class destroyer articles and noticed that you copied the entire code from the C class destroyer (1943) navigation box into the articles. That's really not needed because it's even the purpose of coded templates to have bulky code stored on a central place but to use it by applying a simple string. Like e.g. and  you can use any template page title within curly brackets – and the proper box or message will be displayed on the article page. Happy editing, De728631 (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Having browsed your talk page archive I also noticed that you've basically been advised to add inline citations for each and every sentence in a paragraph. I just wanted to let you know that such a practice is utter nonsense and bad writing style in my opinion. Not only does it clutter the article it is not even recommended by Wikipedia's guidelines. When to cite says very clearly that you need not cite every single sentence in a paragraph while using the same source for it (you should mention different sources though). And on a general note, inline citations are only required for potentially contentious material, for quotes and for directly copied phrases. So I would suggest being bold and developing your own judgment of when and where to cite additional sources with an inline tag. De728631 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I thought it would be overkill to use so many. Thanks for your help and advice. Tentontunic (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

United States and state terrorism
You have now reached 3RR on this article. Please stop removing content from the article and work toward consensus. TFD (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No I have not, look again. Tentontunic (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, you have exceeded 3RR. Please self revert your recent edits.  TFD (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am unable to self revert due to slaterseven edit warring in content against policy, I still have not broken 3r though, but I am quite certain you shall take great pleasure in reporting me anyway, have fun. Tentontunic (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome to WP, where the United States is a terrorist organization, communist terrorists are mislabeled left-wingers, and communist genocide does not exist. Let's not forget the USSR being the kinder, gentler occupiers, really, just a friendly intervention. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, it`s insane isn`t it. But who ever said there was no communist genocide? That would be, well madness to say. Tentontunic (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you keep to 1RR. Not breaking 3RR still means you can be blocked for edit warring. See also WP:BRD. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I second that. Formal adherence to the 3RR rule is not sufficient when the spirit of the WP policy is violated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism
Although your last removal of the section does not violate 1RR letter, it violates the spirit of the WP policy and, therefore is a pure edit warring. I suggest you to self-revert and to join a discussion on the talk page. Remember that consensus is not a right of veto.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see it that way, as there is no consensus for inclusion of either your or my proposals it seems best to remove both until such a time as a consensus is reached. Given this article is under digwuren sanctions it seems prudent to remove obviously contentious material. Tentontunic (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you self-revert. Also, some of your comments to Paul Siebert may be seen as personal attacks and should be re-ractored.  TFD (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You may make further suggestions |Here. The removal of obviously contentious content was quite simply the right thing to do, there is no consensus for either version. I suggest you do not come here and attempt to browbeat me again. Tentontunic (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By refusing to provide concrete arguments you abstained from the consensus building process. Therefore, your references to consensus are based on nothing. All legitimate concerns have been addressed, therefore we do have consensus. Please, self-revert, otherwise we will have to take other steps.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that the royal we? Or do you have a gang? If there is no consensus for inclusion, then it stays out. Tentontunic (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, provide serious arguments against inclusion. The arguments you provided so far are totally unsubstantiated, therefore, they express just your own opinion, and nothing more. This is not sufficient to prevent me from adding properly sourced and neutral text. If no real arguments (supported by sources) will follow, I'll restore the text removed by you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now filed a report at AE and you may reply here. TFD (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice
Hi, Tentontunic. It looks like this article might have legs after all. If you haven't been watching the AfD discussion you might like to review it and  the article itself with a view toward possibly changing your !vote back to "Keep". I've done so myself, as did Crusio (who nominated it for deleteion) based on that discussion and on the new sources that user Pontificalibus and myself have added to the article. Btw, have you ever thought about some lighter garb? I imagine a ten ton tunic will be pretty warm with summer coming on in the northern hemisphere. Maybe something in the one or two ton range? ;-) Cheers, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Vasana
I've just had a look at your Workshop page. Try adding infobox ship and seeing how much you can fill in. You might have enough info for a stub/start class article. WP:MILHIST members may be able to provide more info once the article has been created, it would be worth giving them a shout. Mjroots (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of HMS Constance (1846)
Hello! Your submission of HMS Constance (1846) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries
You should take care when using edit summaries, especially with Twinkle (TW). Edits should only be called "Vandalism" when they meet the criteria in WP:VANDAL. TFD (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell that to IGNY who has reverted myself and called it vandalism, I also consider accusations of edit warring on my talk page an attack which borders on vandalism. Tentontunic (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I told Igny not to use the term vandalism in edit summaries as you can see here. He has not in fact done so since.  TFD (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ownership
I deliberately did not directly accuse anyone in particular as I hoped someone would look with "clean hands" so to speak but no you weren't the person(s) I had in mind. I appreciate and sympathise with your predicament. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 17:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have been in Glasgow by the way, loved it. Although I found the easter house a little rough around the edges :) Tentontunic (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If I may offer a word of advice, tendentious argument on AN/I is not helping your case. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And good advice it is, I shall refrain from further comment, but it annoys me no end when people tell only half a story. Tentontunic (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

talkback
Hi, talkback - Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bloodlands: Europe Between Stalin and Hitler
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)